Royal Assent

The following Acts were given Royal Assent:
Health and Social Care Levy Act,
Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act.
The following Measure was given Royal Assent:
Safeguarding (Code of Practice) Measure.

Gambling Commission: Data
 - Question

Lord Foster of Bath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that gambling operators provide high quality and accurate data for use by the Gambling Commission.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, operators must already provide accurate data to the Gambling Commission as a condition of their licence. If an operator misrepresents or fails to provide information, this could lead to regulatory action. However, it is clear that data quality standards need to improve. The commission has announced that the industry can expect targeted enforcement action in this area from next year.

Lord Foster of Bath: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and draw attention to my entry in the register. The establishment of the data repository is very welcome. Can the Minister put very clearly on the record that it will be a requirement for gambling companies to provide data to that repository and that this will not be voluntary? Can he further tell us what plans there are to ensure that all legitimate researchers will have access to that data?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I am glad we had the opportunity to discuss this last week in the debate initiated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. The PHE review that we debated highlighted the significant evidence gaps and the importance of research. We are looking at the best ways to facilitate high-quality research as part of our review of the Gambling Act, including how we can make better use of operator data. The commission is taking forward the work on the national data repository, with the aim of collecting operator data for use by researchers.

Lord Browne of Ladyton: My Lords, I have given notice of my question. Recent research reveals a correlation in one in four gamblers between higher rates of gambling spend as a proportion of income and gambling harm. This challenges the Government’s oft-repeated view that
“the vast majority of people who gamble do not experience harm”.—[Official Report, 7/1/21; col. 281.]
The Minister’s predecessor dismissed this research when I brought it to her attention, because it does not establish a causative link between gambling spend and gambling harm. Surely the correct response is for the Minister to engage with this research and expand upon it to see whether it can prove that link, rather than dismissing it and preferring surveys of high-risk gamblers.

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the advance notice; it gave me an opportunity to look at his Written Question and the reply from my noble friend. I do not think she was dismissing what he said. This is simply a product of what is still, as I have said, an emerging area in which data and research are being gathered. Dr Naomi Muggleton’s research has been an important contribution to our efforts to understand the widening impacts of gambling harm. Our review is looking at the barriers to conducting high-quality research such as this, which can inform our policy. Following the publication of the PHE review which we debated last week, we are working with the DHSC and others to complete that picture and improve the data and research we have.

Lord Jones of Cheltenham: Given the Minister’s belief in data and research, why are the Government not taking action on research that shows that 60,000 children are gambling addicts? Why is the consultation on loot boxes taking so long, when this is a serious problem today? Will the Minister get a move on, please?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The proportion of children gambling is in decline. As the noble Lord will know, we have raised the age limit for playing the National Lottery to 18. We are also delivering on our manifesto commitment to tackle the issue of loot boxes. We called for evidence last year and received over 30,000 responses, which of course we will respond to in the proper way.

Lord Robathan: My Lords, the losses to the gambling public last year were £14.2 billion—also known as the profits made by gambling companies after expenses. In looking at this data, as the Minister has promised to do, will he look at how much has been spent on media and online advertising, because the sole purpose of this advertising is to increase the amount of gambling, often at the expense of some of the most vulnerable in society who can least afford it? Will the Government look at the data and the consequence of it? Will they also look at either further restricting or, indeed, banning some of this appalling advertising?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: All gambling advertising, wherever it appears, is subject to strict controls on content and placement. As part of the  broad review of the Gambling Act, we have called for evidence on the impacts of advertising to make sure that the right controls are in place and, particularly, are effective in the digital age.

Viscount Colville of Culross: I would like to build on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. Recent research has shown that a quarter of gamblers are 400% more likely to take out payday loans than the average person. It is a shocking figure. Surely the Minister would agree that giving the Gambling Commission access to anonymised gamblers’ data would help uncover the causal link between the two and enable the commission to step in and prevent further harm to gamblers?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I certainly agree with the noble Viscount that the data is crucial to understanding the causes of harm and what we might be able to do to tackle it. That is why the Gambling Commission is taking forward work on the national repository of operator data. It is also working closely with credit reference agencies and others to understand what role financial data can play in preventing gambling harm.

Baroness Merron: My Lords, the Gambling Commission regularly publishes statistics and research on the regulated gambling sector, helping to form the basis of its responses to challenges such as problem or under-age gambling. It is acknowledged that the pandemic has changed not only the industry but the way in which the information is submitted, collated and reported. Is the Minister concerned that some of the figures relating to the impact of gambling may have been understated in recent releases? When do the Government expect normal service to be resumed?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The noble Baroness is absolutely right to point to the impact of the pandemic which, in this area as in so many others, will have definitely had an impact. A lot has changed in the 15 years since the Gambling Act, which is why we are reviewing it in the way that we are. The commission is setting out the next steps that it will take to make sure that operators are submitting high-quality and accurate data to inform that review.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: I declare my interest as chair of the Proof of Age Standards Scheme. Will my noble friend welcome and note the willingness of the industry to co-operate in providing this data and to work with the Government and the Gambling Commission? Will he also ensure and give a commitment today that gaming, betting shops and casinos will not be disadvantaged in relation to their online counterparts in the provision of data?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I certainly welcome the engagement that we have had, and continue to have, from the industry in this important area. As part of our review, we called for evidence on the changes to the legislation governing casinos and we are looking at those responses. Making sure that we have an equitable approach to online and land-based regulation is an important objective of our review.

Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, through the pandemic the use of data in the National Health Service has made it obvious to all of us what a good database can help us achieve. Surely a database of a similar order in respect of the gambling industry would similarly help us make good progress towards addressing these problems that are frequently, and over many years, mentioned in this House. The single customer view methodology takes people’s data—with the permission of the Information Commissioner, as regards GDPR—and pools it to provide precisely the database that I think we would all welcome. Will the Minister assure us that this is a way forward and that he is committed with his officials to finding a solution?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The noble Lord is absolutely right that good data drives good policy, and that is what we want to see in the review. The Gambling Commission is working with operators on how they can share data where they believe a customer is at risk, and the Information Commissioner has confirmed that data protection law can permit this in relation to the work on single customer view, as the noble Lord mentioned. We encourage the industry to trial a solution swiftly.

Lord Smith of Hindhead: My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. Some reports have estimated that unregulated gambling on the dark web and black market has doubled during the pandemic. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether his department is working or has plans to work with the Gambling Commission to investigate illegal gambling activity taking place and to collect data on the levels of money being spent?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: The dark web is clearly one area where the changes over the last 15 years can be seen. We called for evidence on the black market as part of our review and we must make sure that the Gambling Commission is set up to respond flexibly to the challenges that the future will bring. The commission has also received an uplift to its licence fees, which came into effect this month, which will strengthen the resources which it has to monitor and tackle illegal gambling.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that gambling can be a great entertainment, particularly in places such as Spanish City in Whitley Bay, but it can also be a very destructive addiction. Does he agree that targeted advertising aimed at vulnerable people, particularly young people and chronic gamblers, is one of the main drivers of addiction, and will the Government make this one of the priorities for reform?

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay: I certainly know and remember Spanish City well; I will be back there this weekend. The advertising codes are clear that gambling adverts must never be targeted at children or vulnerable people. The Advertising Standards Authority recently announced changes to the gambling codes to protect vulnerable people, and further details on changes to protect children will follow by the end of the year.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next question.

Regulation of Property Agents Working Group
 - Question

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to implement the recommendations of the final report of the Regulation of Property Agents Working Group, published on 18 July 2019.

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, I declare my residential commercial property interests as set out in the register. The Government are committed to promoting fairness and transparency for home owners and renters and making sure that consumers are protected from abuse and poor service. This commitment includes raising professionalism and standards among property agents. The Government are considering the recommendations from the independent working group of the noble Lord, Lord Best, on property agents and we welcome the work by the noble Baroness and the industry itself to improve best practice across the sector.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: I thank the Minister for that. As he suggests, we now have cross-industry and consumer agreement on codes of practice for all residential agents covering letting sale and block management. The whole industry and its users want to see the report by the noble Lord, Lord Best, implemented and the regulator set up. Therefore, in addition to the words of comfort that the Minister has given us, can he go one further and give us a commitment to implement that report for the sake of all people who rent their houses?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, I am not able to go any further but I know that the final code is ready, and that is a springboard to action. I am looking forward to engaging with the noble Baroness in due course.

Lord Flight: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Best, and his working group on a most thorough report. In its 56 pages, it makes recommendations on a model for an independent property agent regulator, for a single mandatory and legally enforceable code of practice for property agents, and on clarifying processes and charges for leaseholders. Do the Government have any material criticisms of the report to date?

Lord Greenhalgh: My noble friend should note that the Government welcome the final report of the independent Regulation of Property Agents Working Group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best. The Government have been clear about the need to raise  professionalism and standards among property agents, which is why we tasked a group of experts from across industry, led by our highly experienced chair, to advise on the best way to secure this objective. The working group’s report and recommendations are an important development towards ensuring that all consumers are treated fairly and all agents work to the same high standards.

Lord Best: My Lords, as noble Lords have mentioned, I chaired the Government’s working group on regulation of property agents. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her sterling ongoing work on this issue. Bearing in mind that the leading industry bodies for estate, lettings and managing agents were all on our working group, as well as consumer experts; our recommendations for a regulator of property agents were unanimous and favourably received by Ministers; the cost of a regulator would fall on the industry rather than on the Government; and I delivered our report over two years ago, may I press the Minister to confirm that there will at least be news of the necessary legislation within six months?

Lord Greenhalgh: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work undertaken by the noble Lord on the wide-ranging recommendations contained in the final report from his working group. I am grateful to him and to all those who contributed. However, he will appreciate that this is a complex area with many interdependencies. Having paused work on it at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, we continue to consider the recommendations in the noble Lord’s report.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is not here.

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill: My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the advisory board of the Property Redress Scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Best, put it very clearly: this report was two years ago, and still nothing concrete has happened. Some things can be done quite simply. The first recommendation is the appointment of a new independent regulator to lead matters in this instance. May I specifically ask the Minister when he expects such a regulator to be appointed?

Lord Greenhalgh: The noble Lord will know that the creation of a new regulatory regime requires a legislative underpinning. We are considering how to move forward on this and other areas and will come back to this House in due course.

Baroness Blake of Leeds: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Hayter, all the working-group members and the progress made towards adoption of the codes of practice as outlined. I add my support to the calls for the Government to implement the report at speed. Last year, a court ruled that letting agents are no longer able to advertise properties as unavailable to those in receipt of universal credit. What steps have the Government taken since to prevent this discrimination? Does the Minister agree that implementing the codes of practice would prevent such discrimination in future?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, we recognise that having an overarching code of practice will be an important step in addressing these issues around discrimination. That is why we are looking forward to receiving the draft code compiled from the hard work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and others. We will come back in due course on how we take that forward.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, leaseholders in cladding-scandal-ridden flats have seen a meteoric rise in their service charges. Emily in Leeds has seen hers rise from £400 per year to nearly £3,000 per year. The Minister has said this afternoon that he is committed to leaseholder fairness. Regulation is urgently needed to save these leaseholders from bankruptcy. When—not if—will the Government introduce regulation?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, the Building Safety Bill is currently going through the other place. We strongly believe that all fees and charges should be justifiable, transparent and communicated effectively. By law, variable service charges, and pollution and administration charges, must all be reasonable, and, where costs relate to work or services, those must be of a reasonable standard. There are already significant legal protections in place.

Prime Minister: Meeting with First Ministers
 - Question

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Prime Minister will next meet the First Ministers of the United Kingdom’s devolved Governments, and what they will discuss.

Lord Greenhalgh: The Prime Minister met the First Ministers on Monday to discuss the next steps of Covid recovery and the upcoming COP 26 summit. He expects to meet them again early next year.

Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale: My Lords, next Wednesday the Chancellor will present his annual Budget to Parliament. I understand that that Budget was not on the agenda, despite some economic references in the items discussed on Monday at the meeting with the First Ministers. After 22 years of the devolution settlement, which has since expanded the tax-raising and tax-varying powers of the Scottish Government and others, surely it is time for Budgets to be prepared in the United Kingdom on a slightly different basis, with some consultation and engagement in advance with all levels of government, including the devolved Governments.

Lord Greenhalgh: I know that the intergovernmental review is specifically looking at arrangements for the development of Budgets. I point out that there have  been a number of meetings between the UK Government and the devolved Governments in the run-up to the spending review.

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: My Lords, DIT Ministers are refusing to engage with the devolved Governments on trade negotiations, other than on very specific devolved competences. However, major trade deals, especially those dealing with sectors such as agriculture, food processing, energy or manufacturing, can have a major impact on devolved territories, so will the Government undertake to involve the devolved Governments fully on any issues impacting on their economies in trade deals and not simply on areas of devolved competences?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, the model of international engagement is also something that the intergovernmental review is looking to iron out so that there is effective engagement. Engagement on international matters has now been embedded in the inter-ministerial group for trade and EU issues as well as in the inter-ministerial standing committee.

Lord Bruce of Bennachie: My Lords, in engagement with the devolved authorities, the Government must respect the devolution settlement and the devolved authorities need to recognise that we have a Government of the whole United Kingdom. Is it possible to do that with equal respect to both parties?

Lord Greenhalgh: Absolutely, there needs to be equal respect. That is why there has been a major review of how we ensure effective working between the devolved Governments and the United Kingdom Government. It has taken some time to conclude.

Baroness Eaton: Will my noble friend the Minister inform the House of what progress the intergovernmental relations review has made since the March progress update and why it has taken so long to conclude the review?

Lord Greenhalgh: My noble friend is right that it is not a fast process, but we are now in a position to conclude. Developing a package that best reflects each devolved Government’s views can be the result only of detailed joint analysis by the UK Government and the devolved Governments.

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to remind the Prime Minister to remind in turn the First Minister of Scotland of the vital contribution to the Scottish economy of United Kingdom defence expenditure, in particular the submarine base at Faslane, the Type 26 frigates now being built on the Clyde and now the Type 31 frigates being built at Rosyth?

Lord Greenhalgh: I will undertake to do that. Of course, the Prime Minister is now also the Minister for the Union, and I am sure that he, as well as my right honourable friend who is now the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, will use every opportunity to remind the First Minister of that important defence contribution.

Lord Davies of Gower: During the Covid pandemic, the Welsh Labour Government at Cardiff Bay have received substantial additional funding—indeed, billions—through the Barnett formula and other funding. Does the Minister agree that, when they next meet, a discussion of the reluctance on the part of the Welsh Government to spend that money in support of the ailing Welsh national health system and of Welsh businesses would be very appropriate, as well as an additional discussion as to why they are reluctant to hold an inquiry into their performance in dealing with the pandemic in Wales?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, it is important to recognise that through the Barnett formula a considerable amount of money has been made available to all the devolved Governments—some £28.1 billion. We are happy to continue to engage in a productive way with the Welsh First Minister and others on how best to recover.

Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston: My Lords, when the Prime Minister next meets the First Ministers in the new year, I hope it will be a convivial and friendly gathering. I hope that all in the room will reflect on how they responded to Covid and to some of the backlogs in education and health, and that each part will find that they have done some things better and others worse. Could we encourage them to compare their experiences and learn from each other so that the whole of the United Kingdom will benefit from some of the divergences of the four units?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, that is absolutely an opportunity to learn. The pandemic will probably have been the most memorable event in my lifetime, as someone who was born well after the Second World War, and it is important that we learn the lessons from divergence and different approaches so that we are better prepared for the next time, should this ever happen again.

Baroness Blake of Leeds: My Lords, I would like to extend the debate to the devolved entities in England. Earlier this year, PoliticsHome reported that some metro mayors are growing increasingly frustrated with the Government’s favouritism towards certain mayors by way of, for example, meetings with the Prime Minister or the Chancellor and access to officials. What steps have the Government taken to increase engagement with all metro mayors regardless of their party affiliation?

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, I am certainly aware of a number of meetings that have taken place— I have had numerous meetings with the Mayor of Manchester and the Mayor of the West Midlands, and many with the Mayor of London. Of course, we recognise the importance of effective engagement. It is through effective engagement with our mayors that we can support each other so that we recover from this pandemic.

Lord Dodds of Duncairn: My Lords, one area for profitable discussion would be how we can ensure that all countries and regions of the United  Kingdom can benefit from growing economic prosperity. As part of that discussion, would it not be useful to discuss how we can prevent Northern Ireland being placed at a severe competitive disadvantage compared with the other countries in the UK by the provisions relating to state aid in the Northern Ireland protocol, something that does not get much coverage but which is vital? Can we ensure that the Government’s proposals in their Command Paper in July are implemented as quickly as possible? That would help to redress this problem.

Lord Greenhalgh: My Lords, the noble Lord is obviously more expert than me on the specifics, but it is important that the state aid rules apply fairly and equally across all our four nations.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: My Lords, given the somewhat frayed cords that hold the nations of the United Kingdom together, are the Ministers of the devolved Governments satisfied that they have a fair voice in drawing up the agenda of these meetings? Are the issues that they want to discuss being discussed?

Lord Greenhalgh: The noble and right reverend Lord should understand that there is a three-tiered form of engagement: there are portfolio-level meetings, cross-cutting issues and then the Prime Minister meeting with First Ministers and the Deputy First Minister. The sheer volume of meetings indicates that there are plenty of fora to ensure that we deal with the issues at the appropriate level of engagement, whether at the bottom tier or in meetings with the Prime Minister.

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, I would like to suggest something for the agenda for the next meeting. Could the Minister ask the Prime Minister—nicely—to put on the agenda ways of ensuring that money allocated by the Treasury for devolved areas is spent properly on those areas, not improperly on reserved areas?

Lord Greenhalgh: There is a clear political point there, but also a practical point. We must spend money for its intended purposes, which is why we have bodies such as the National Audit Office to ensure that taxpayers’ money is properly spent. We need to look into how we can have a similar regime for devolved Governments.

Lord McFall of Alcluith: My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked.

Shortages: Protection for the Vulnerable
 - Question

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect the most vulnerable in the event of shortages of (1) energy, and (2) other necessities.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, there is no shortage of energy, and the Government have taken action to increase the supply of HGV drivers. The supply of fuel and food is secure. Protecting vulnerable consumers is our top priority, which is why our energy price cap will remain in place. We are supporting vulnerable and low-income households through initiatives such as the £500 million household support fund, the warm home discount, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I do not agree with the Minister that everything has been fine following the shocks that we have suffered from Covid and Brexit over the past few months, and neither would the underprivileged in our society. Are the Government doing some contingency planning, as we have really big threats coming, possibly with climate change, to protect the most underprivileged and deprived in society to ensure that they are looked after? People are talking in the press about forms of rationing. We could look for schemes through which we could protect them more than we do at the moment. Similarly, we need to get out and make certain that people who are working on the front line are given all the protection they need—including petrol—so that they can get to work and so on. That has certainly not been happening in the past few weeks.

Lord Callanan: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the poorest and most vulnerable are always at the heart of our policies in this area—we always seek to protect them. It is, however, important to emphasise that there is no shortage of essential items, and we have taken action to ensure that supply chains remain robust.

Bishop of Durham: My Lords, one of the other necessities mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, is food. Nationally and globally, we waste a third of all food. When 1.7 million children, between September 2020 and February 2021, were living in food poverty along with their families, surely there must be a better way. This week, the Earthshot Prize celebrated Milan’s citywide food-waste policy, which saves 260,000 meals-worth a year. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to encourage and support the better local collection and distribution of food waste in the UK more effectively?

Lord Callanan: The right reverend Prelate makes a good point. Everybody across all levels of government—national and local—want to do all they can to minimise food waste. Of course, we are always looking for additional ways to protect the most vulnerable.

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, shortages of energy and food have driven up the cost of basic necessities. Does the Minister agree that the poorest pensioners are likely to struggle most, as they spend so much of their budget on these items? What are the Government doing to increase take-up of pension credit, as 40% of pensioners who are entitled do not claim it and therefore do not get access to the warm home discounts, cold weather payments and so on  that this benefit could provide for them? With 40% of pensioners not receiving that benefit, what will the Government propose to improve the situation?

Lord Callanan: My Lords, nearly 1.5 million people across Great Britain do receive pension credit, but I agree with my noble friend that many are not claiming what they are entitled to. We are working constantly to increase awareness of pension credit; we recently joined forces with Age UK and various celebrities to try to encourage pensioners to check their eligibility for access to this important benefit.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, could we not provide statutory protection of a national scheme for individuals acting as service providers and the needy, whereby individuals—perhaps even neighbours —acting as volunteer service providers, could take on responsibility for arranging appointments and performing other designated life tasks? This would all be under clearly defined model arrangements, thereby relieving pressure on statutory providers. There is an army of volunteers out there, but many are wary of liability. A national scheme could complement existing charity arrangements.

Lord Callanan: The noble Lord is right. During the pandemic, we saw the massive difference that volunteers can make to people’s lives. Our role in government in volunteering is as a steward, enabling a further unlocking of the voluntary sector. We are always aiming to simplify the routes into volunteering to help match up supply and demand.

Baroness Janke: My Lords, in the light of the upsurge of food, energy and living costs looming this winter, does the Minister agree that the best way in which to support the most vulnerable people is to restore the £20 uplift and reverse the 5% cut to 4.4 million families? If not, what special measures will be on offer, particularly to people with disabilities, who have suffered most disproportionately during the pandemic, through loss of income and support, increasing care charges, poor access to essential services and generally feeling forgotten and not cared about? How will they be protected from cold and hunger in the coming months?

Lord Callanan: I know that we have debated these matters a lot in the House recently, and I know that the noble Baroness will be aware that the uplift to universal credit was only ever meant to be temporary. I outlined earlier some of the many schemes that we have on offer to pensioners and those living in fuel poverty to help them get through this crisis.

Lord Grantchester: In the energy market, when consumers were encouraged to switch suppliers to find the best deal, it was to encourage competition and innovation among utility companies. Are the Government still confident that the supplier of last resort mechanism is the correct outcome for suppliers and consumers in the process in a competitive energy market?

Lord Callanan: The answer to the noble Lord is yes. A number of energy companies have, sadly, gone to the wall, but the supplier of last resort scheme has so far been successful in transferring to other providers. We have other administrative regimes in place should they be necessary but, so far, the SoLR process has worked well.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the shortage of energy is going to be felt by those households which simply cannot afford the soaring energy prices. Given the forecast that gas prices are going to go up another 30% next year on top of the already very high levels, are the Government considering further measures to alleviate the intense hardship that this will cause for millions of families? This could be done, if not by removing VAT, which may be difficult, by vastly expanding the warm homes discount or easing or temporarily suspending some of the many green levies that bump up our energy bills. Is some further action being contemplated?

Lord Callanan: Of course, my noble friend will be aware that domestic fuel, such as gas and electricity, is already subject to a reduced rate of 5% of VAT. He will understand, I am sure, that I cannot comment on any speculation about any other changes that might happen in the Budget, beyond saying that protecting consumers is our top priority, which is why the energy price cap will remain in place. I announced earlier the other levels of support that we have in place.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: My Lords, millions are already made vulnerable by poverty—too often deep poverty—and food insecurity. The pandemic has underlined the need for a decent social security system that protects them in difficult times. I repeat the question, because the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, was so inadequate: will the Government therefore rethink their decision to end the £20 universal credit uplift as a first step towards ensuring that social security benefits are adequate to meet needs? The proposed local authority household support fund that the Minister mentioned is not a solution that provides security for those in vulnerable circumstances.

Lord Callanan: I think we have a difference of opinion here. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the universal credit uplift was only ever meant to be temporary. The opposition parties do not accept that, but that was the case. We recognise that some people continue to need extra support, which is why we introduced the £500 million household support fund.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering: I refer to my position as president of National Energy Action. Does my noble friend share my concern that there are currently 4 million people in fuel poverty? Will he use his good offices to ensure that everyone has a warm home this Christmas?

Lord Callanan: Of course, we are constantly looking at the various schemes we have. We announced £850 million for the home upgrade grant yesterday, which will go precisely to those my noble friend is concerned about—the fuel-poor living in rural areas.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I chaired a commission on vulnerable consumers of energy, two or three years ago. The industry has taken on some of the recommendations; Ofgem and the Government have taken on rather fewer. Does the Minister not recognise that the way Ofgem has licensed over 100 new competitors without any requirement that they look after vulnerable consumers has caused distress and the kind of fuel poverty that has already been raised? Over 100 licences have been given. Competition benefits consumers, but it has to be accompanied by resilience and reliability. Will the Government and Ofgem look at this again?

Lord Callanan: Of course, we always keep these matters under review, but to a certain extent the noble Lord answered his own question: competition is good for the consumer, and the extent and array of competition in the energy market has produced lower prices for many consumers. Obviously, in a competitive market, particularly with the recent spikes, some companies will go to the wall, but there are protections in place for those consumers under the follow-up process that I talked about with the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. But of course we always keep these matters under review.

Covid-19: Plan B
 - Private Notice Question

Lord Scriven: Asked by Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the rising number of Covid-19 cases and comments made by the NHS Confederation regarding the reintroduction of certain restrictions, what criteria they have put in place as the triggers to implement their Covid-19 “Plan B”.

Lord Kamall: I thank the noble Lord for the very important Question. As set out in the Government’s comprehensive Covid-19 Response: Autumn and Winter Plan 2021, if the data suggests that the NHS is likely to come under unsustainable pressure, the Government have prepared plan B contingency measures. We monitor a wide range of Covid-19 data closely, so we can act if there is a substantial likelihood of this happening. We also track the economic and societal impacts of coronavirus to ensure that any response takes into account those wider effects in a balanced way.

Lord Scriven: My Lords, Professor Stephen Reicher, a member of SAGE’s sub-committee, said yesterday:
“I don’t want lockdown … The danger is if you do nothing … in terms of infections, in terms of long Covid, in terms of hospitalisations … they will be left with no alternative.”
Based on what the Minister has just said, what evidence do the Government have of why scientists such as Professor Reicher are wrong in seeking mitigation measures now to deal with the worrying number of viral transmissions as a way of stopping future lockdowns?

Lord Kamall: In order to judge what the next action should be, the Government have laid out plan A. Plan A is focused, for winter 2021-22, on building defences through vaccines, antivirals and disease-modified therapeutics, identifying and isolating cases of transmission through test and trace, and supporting the NHS and social care, but also advising people on how to protect themselves and offering clear guidance and communications.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, it is quite clear that those things are not working. When I saw the Secretary of State for BEIS doing the media rounds this morning denying that plan B was coming down the track, I thought we might open a book on how soon the Government will actually launch plan B. I would like to ask the Minister whether plan B becomes necessary because the Government have made such a mess of plan A, with very late vaccinations for 12 to 15 year-olds and a worryingly low uptake of booster jabs. Is it too late to prevent an NHS winter crisis, with the knock-on effects that will have for our backlog?

Lord Kamall: I thank the noble Baroness for her question and, while I have the opportunity, for all her advice, as a new boy in the role. We will continue to look at a number of different factors, including both economic and health indicators, before we judge whether it is necessary to move to plan B. Plan B does not actually involve complete lockdown. It involves introducing mandatory vaccine-only Covid status certification in certain riskier settings; legally mandating face coverings in certain settings, such as public transport; and communicating clearly and urgently to the public if the risk level increases.

Lord Robathan: My Lords, could my noble friend tell us, following the amazing success of the vaccine rollout, what proportion of hospital beds are occupied by Covid patients? Because it seems to me that some people—some doomsayers—are trying to create panic where there is no need for it.

Lord Kamall: I thank my noble friend for his question. I do not have the detailed data and I will write to him. But in terms of the link between cases, hospitalisations and deaths, it is quite clear that the vaccine has been working to break the link between the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths.

Lord Rooker: Would the Minister accept that one of the unfair criticisms, in some ways, over the last 18 months, has been “too little, too late”? That cannot happen again. We need to set good examples. At Prime Minister’s Questions today, there was not a single Conservative MP wearing a mask in a crowded Chamber. What on earth is that as an example to the people on the Tube and everywhere else? Clearly, some small measures now will save the big measures later.

Lord Kamall: I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we take as many measures as possible to make sure that we do not have to move to plan B. I assure the noble Lord that I do wear my mask to, hopefully, set an example, and I hope others  will too—but it is really important that we understand what factors are driving this rise in numbers and the most effective way of tackling it.

Baroness Manzoor: My Lords, can the Minister say what action the Government are taking to ensure that the inequalities that have been experienced by black and ethnic minority people in relation to Covid-19 are being addressed now?

Lord Kamall: I thank my noble friend for that question, particularly in the light of this being Black History Month, an important month to be celebrated in terms of the contribution that the Afro-Caribbean community has made to this country over many years. However, on the specific issue, sadly there are some demographics in communities that have a lower uptake of vaccines. The Government are discussing with a number of stakeholders how we can improve information, but also encourage and exhort people from these communities to take the vaccines.

Baroness Hussein-Ece: My Lords, we know there are government advisers who are advising the Government to implement plan B. Can the Minister say which ones are advising the Government not to implement plan B?

Lord Kamall: I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate that all these issues are not necessarily binary, and that there are often a number of trade-offs, not only between economic and health factors but also within the health community itself. For example, there have been warnings that if we go down the route of more restrictive measures, we will see an increase both in patients who are unable to have the surgery that they had planned and in mental health cases.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, taking the Minister back to the answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Rooker, on the issue of mask wearing, the evidence seems to be that wearing a mask does have an impact on whether viruses are transmitted, and in this case there is efficacy in respect not only of Covid-19 but of other viruses which could be circulating at this time of year and themselves putting pressure on the NHS. What is it that the Government cannot bear about asking people to wear masks? It has no economic cost, costs very little in terms of inconvenience and has a very significant impact.

Lord Kamall: I assure the noble Baroness that plan B does involve legally mandating face coverings in certain settings, such as public transport and shops. I am sure many noble Lords will have recognised, when they are travelling in by public transport, the number of people wearing masks on public transport, even though advice by the transport companies has dropped.

Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I have a daughter who works in A&E in a London hospital who simply says, “Please will you make people act responsibly once again?” It costs us absolutely nothing. We acted too slowly previously. We have seen 10% increases in the last week; please just get on with plan B.

Lord Kamall: I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. It is important. Personally, I do believe that many people should be wearing masks and that there is evidence for this. But the fact is, we have to look at a number of indicators and balance those up.

Lord Cormack: My Lords, could my noble friend tell us how many of us who are eligible for the third jab have had it? I have had mine. Could he also tell us what forward planning we have? Is this going to be an annual event? Are the resources available to ensure that it can be continued indefinitely?

Lord Kamall: I thank my noble friend for that very important question. Some of the data suggests that there has been a slower uptake for the booster. I do not have the exact information and data available on the uptake of the booster, but I will make sure I write to my noble friend.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister keeps referring to plan B, but he has not answered the fundamental question that my noble friend Lord Rooker raised. This Government have too often in the past been slow to respond, and as a result has had to introduce far harsher measures as a consequence. Does he accept that that has been the case in the past, and what assurances can he give us, as we go forward, that that will not happen later this year?

Lord Kamall: I am afraid I disagree with the noble Lord on that particular question. In fact, the UK is seen as a leader in the speed and efficiency with which it adopted vaccines. Countries that criticised the UK were, only a year later, saying “How did you do it? How did you manage to roll out your vaccines so quickly?” Of course, things change, and it is very important that we balance all the factors when considering whether to move to plan B.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: One of the reasons why there is a health crisis at the moment seems to be that it is a non-Covid crisis. Would the Minister comment on the fact that the backlog, the collateral damage of lockdowns, has created a terrible situation? It is non-Covid related, so we should not overreact. Quickly, on plan B, which experts will he take advice from? Will it be Professor Reicher, a behavioural and social psychologist, or the NHS Confederation, run by someone who was on “Moral Maze” with me? Not all experts are experts, or should be listened to.

Lord Kamall: I thank the noble Baroness for pointing out the important issue that there is a trade-off. There are some who continue to argue against moving to plan B, and it is important that we assess the balance of arguments. There are trade-offs within health itself. There will be some patients who will be concerned about plan B because of how it will affect their access to healthcare, and there are other, wider societal factors.

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that before any change in government policy, whether it be plan B or any other changes, there will be proper consultation with the devolved Administrations?

Lord Kamall: The Government have co-ordinated action and been in constant conversation with the devolved Administrations—or, as one noble Lord said, the devolved Governments—to co-ordinate and to learn from each other in terms of a UK-wide response.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that not only have ethnic minority communities seen tremendous disparities in their experience of Covid, but so have people with disabilities where long-term care is needed. Is his department in consultation with them at the moment, in preparation for plan B?

Lord Kamall: The new office OHID, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, clearly assesses a number of factors and government policy to help those from more deprived communities and in more deprived areas. If the noble Baroness has specific examples and wishes to write to me, I will answer.

Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row: My Lords, would my noble friend tell me whether the Government are still happy with the composition, mathematical modelling and advice from SAGE?

Lord Kamall: May I write to my noble friend on that?

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, can the Minister explain now—and not write to me—how and by whom these decisions are made? Are they made by the chief executive of the NHS or by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, or do they have to wait for a decision from the Prime Minister and wait until he returns from his beach holiday?

Lord Kamall: The Government are consulting widely on the measures to be taken, balancing and looking at the trade-offs not only in health but with wider societal factors.

Baroness Pinnock: My Lords, nearly 1,000 people are dying every week from Covid. What is the trigger in deaths before plan B comes into effect?

Lord Kamall: I am not sure I agree with the noble Baroness on the figure she cites; I will double-check and write to her. On the triggers, it is clear that we have to look at a range of factors before deciding whether to move to plan B.

Baroness Altmann: My Lords, clearly these are very difficult issues, but can my noble friend help the House—if not today then in writing—by explaining some of the statistics being used to judge what is happening with Covid right now? For example, the use of a Covid-positive test within 28 days of death is not necessarily indicative of what is happening, and the vaccine programme seems to have ensured that those who are seriously ill or sadly dying of Covid are those who are not vaccinated or have serious underlying other conditions—in which case, the statistics may be misleading us somewhat.

Lord Kamall: I thank my noble friend for making that valuable point. When one looks at the broken-down data, one sees that there are some demographics that have not taken up the vaccine as much as they should have, including a number who have not received the booster. We want to make sure that as many people as possible are vaccinated so that we do not have to move to plan B and can continue with plan A. Plan A includes provisions for ensuring that we increase the number of people vaccinated.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has now elapsed.

Armed Forces Bill
 - Order of Consideration Motion

The Earl of Courtown: Moved by The Earl of Courtown
That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Armed Forces Bill has been committed that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 9, Schedule 2, Clause 10, Schedule 3, Clause 11, Schedule 4, Clauses 12 to 15, Schedule 5, Clauses 16 to 26, Title.

Earl of Courtown: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Minister, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Motion agreed.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
 - Committee (1st Day)

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Before I call Amendment 1, I should alert the Committee that the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris of Richmond and Lady Brinton, will be taking part remotely.

  
Clause 1: Police covenant report

Amendment 1

Lord Coaker: Moved by Lord Coaker
1: Clause 1, page 2, line 2, after “workforce,” insert “including mental health and the impact of trauma,”Member’s explanatory statementThis would explicitly require that mental health and the impact of trauma on the police workforce must be reported on as part of the report on the covenant.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, it is a great privilege to start the discussion of this very important Bill in Committee, and I look forward to discussing it with the Minister and, no doubt, many other colleagues  across this House. I am particularly moved to speak on the policing part of the Bill and to open this discussion, since, as some of your Lordships will know, my father was a Metropolitan Police officer for 30 years. He retired fairly recently—over 30 years ago—and is still alive at the age of 95, so it is a great privilege and an honour to speak. One or two people may have met him; I am not sure. It probably goes back a bit further than that.
The serious point is that the amendment gives us the opportunity to start this debate by praising our police. Yes, there have been some serious questions raised about our police. Very well-documented issues have arisen which need proper investigation and inquiry, and they will, in due course, be looked at and raise serious questions. I am not saying that these issues are not important, but we should also recognise the serious job of work that the police do. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, is in his place. Nottinghamshire has a very fine police force, as is the case across the country. Many of us have had cause to call on police officers and their staff to help us in our daily lives. That was evidenced in our own Parliament not long ago when PC Keith Palmer was killed on our premises as the result of a terrorist attack. Every single day, as we come on to the Estate, we see the police protecting us. It is important to set that on the record so that, when we discuss these issues, police across the country—both past and present—their staff and families know that we start from this perspective.
We strongly support the police covenant, which we believe is long overdue. These amendments are about making the covenant as strong and effective as it can be so that it works for police officers and their families. I know that the Minister will take the amendments in that spirit as we seek to clarify some parts of the clauses.
I suggest that the Minister looks at the lessons learned from the Armed Forces covenant, to build on that experience and mirror its strengths in the way in which it has developed. It is important that the covenant is designed to cover both former and serving police personnel; we welcome that. I want also to pay tribute to the Police Federation and all those who have long campaigned for the introduction of a covenant, the Police Federation having done so through its Protect the Protectors campaign.
The size of the Bill has been remarked on. It will raise a huge number of issues during the next few weeks. However, today’s debate and the amendments we have put forward are related to the covenant. I will speak also to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser.
Amendment 1 would put into the Bill that a report about the police covenant must specifically include
“mental health and the impact of trauma.”
I have also added my name to the important amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which probes what access members and former members of the police workforce have to mental health programmes and support. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply because the importance of mental health support for our officers cannot be overstated. As we know, they are regularly exposed to traumatic and dangerous  situations in their job—something they willingly accept as part of their duty. As the covenant says, it is therefore incumbent on us to recognise the trauma that may be imposed on officers and their families, both when they are serving and when they have moved on or retired.
I sometimes think—as I am sure many other noble Lords do—what it must be like to go to some of the scenes of horrific murders or of child abuse. All these occur in the normal, everyday life of a police officer, who then has to go home. I know that the Government will want to ensure that this support is given to them. These amendments ask how we ensure that somebody who has to deal with such situations is given the support they deserve. The amendment would specifically recognise the impact of trauma in the Bill.
This was raised by a number of Members in the other place, particularly my colleague Sarah Champion MP, and I pay tribute to her work on that. She raised the necessity of training our officers in recognising and identifying trauma and how to deal with it. She said:
“The fact that across police forces there is not a standard level of support to be accessed once an officer feels he has the need for it is really letting our forces down.”—[Official Report, Commons, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 25/5/21; col. 178.]
That is a concern that we all have. No doubt there are examples of good practice, but how does one ensure such good practice across all forces and areas? The lack of consistency in mental health support is something that we need to address.
Since the debate in the Commons, to be fair to the Government, they have announced a programme of mandatory annual mental health checks—but they are for the Armed Forces. The Minister for Defence has called it an annual mental health MOT, with the intention of ensuring that our Armed Forces understand what help is available to them and are equipped to manage the unique pressures of service life. I wonder whether the Government might learn from that. Might that be something that could be applied to the context of the police in our country? We could learn from the Armed Forces covenant on what has worked with respect to this and from the successes and failures.
This is about the safety not only of the police but of our communities. Regular and high-quality mental health support makes sure that our police are fit to be in post, are able to process the situations that they deal with regularly as part of the job and are capable of supporting and responding to traumatised victims.
Amendment 3 would specifically add to the Bill that a report on the police covenant must look at what mental health support is required by officers’ families. This is to probe the simple issue of what support is available for an officer’s spouse, partner or family. The key thing here, which I am sure the Government will recognise, is that if your partner is regularly put in harm’s way in the course of their job, or they are traumatised by their experience during their service, there should be a service that you can call to seek support and to have a specialist speak to you about its impact on you and your family. That is an important point for us to consider.
Amendment 5 goes to the absolute heart of how the covenant must work. It would set up an oversight board with an independent chair and membership from policing organisations, including the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association, UNISON, the College of Policing and others. The oversight board would review the Secretary of State’s annual report on the covenant before it is laid before Parliament. The basis for this was put succinctly in the other place by my honourable friend for Croydon Central, who said:
“In essence, the amendment would ensure that the covenant does not have Ministers marking their own homework.”—[ Official Report, Commons, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 25/5/21; col. 193.]
The covenant must belong to our police forces, and the Government must listen to our police. It should not be for the Home Secretary to decide how well the Government are fulfilling their duties under the covenant.
We recognise that, currently, there is an oversight board, which met for the first time over the summer, but that was chaired by the Home Secretary. This would rebalance that by putting an independent chair in her place. This is an important point about putting the police themselves in the driving seat, instead of Ministers.
I turn now to Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, which has our full support. It would amend our own Amendment 5 to include the National Association of Retired Police Officers in the proposed oversight board. Our Amendment 2 would require the Secretary of State’s annual report on the covenant specifically to consider the support needed by the police workforce on retirement, including access to training courses. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for her work on this issue and look forward to her contribution later in our discussions.
A crucial part of the covenant and a key strength of it is that it applies, as I say, to both serving and former officers and their families. The service an officer has paid to their community and the impact it may have had on, for example, their health, does not finish the day that they retire from the force. The covenant is about that long-lasting partnership and recognition of the unique situation of the police workforce.
One issue we want to raise is support at the point of retirement. The issues that can arise for a police officer leaving the policing environment after years of service and entering another workplace can have similarities to those experienced by forces personnel on resettlement. Our amendment specifically mentions access to training courses to provide avenues for those who feel it is the right time to end their police service but are looking for somewhere else where they can use their skills.
Another key issue would then be access to support and financial planning, particularly for those who may need to give up their job earlier than they perhaps would otherwise have planned to. The question for the Minister is: what are we offering our officers by way of support when they are ready to leave the force and make that step?
Finally, I turn to Amendment 7, which would put a duty on health bodies to have due regard to the police covenant. The bodies covered by the amendment include  clinical commissioning groups, NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. The key to this amendment is that it reflects what the Government provided for in the Armed Forces Bill, which put a legal duty on healthcare bodies. The point of the covenant is that it goes wider than the Home Office, which should already be occupied with the welfare of our police forces. This is about widening that discussion and support and embedding it in our communities, across departments and policy areas. The Government believed that measure would strengthen the Armed Forces covenant and we believe it would be a good step for this covenant.
In this group of important amendments, we seek further clarification from the Government on how the covenant will work and how we will make it a success. We all want the covenant to be what the police services of our country deserve and we can bring that about through the legislation that we pass in this Chamber.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to this policing debate and to hear of his antecedents. I added my name to this amendment and, with your Lordships’ indulgence, will speak to Amendments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, to which I have also put my name. These all deal with the many associated issues in this group, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just outlined.
I have been extremely concerned at the growing number of police officers and former police officers who have turned up at the police treatment centres run by the charity of which I am president with clear mental health issues alongside whatever physical injuries they might have. In the year 2019-20, we provided 3,600 hours of one-on-one counselling. Some 1,200 patients received well-being support through the psychological well-being programme, well-being weekends and recharge days. This is a 19% increase on those attending in 2018. To facilitate this growing area of work, we have provided a new clinical wing at PTC Harrogate, in association with Police Care UK, another police charity.
In its latest research, Police Care UK found that 90% of police officers will be exposed to multiple traumatic incidents during their career—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—and that one in five serving personnel are currently living with symptoms of PTSD.
While they do an amazing job at the St Andrews centre, the new clinical wing will be of enormous extra benefit, having two new wings with two floors and adding 20 bedrooms to the estate. It will give four additional counselling rooms, one nursing surgery room, six therapy rooms, three workshop spaces and a community room. Noble Lords can see how necessary these will be; we can only hope that the extra facilities will be enough to meet the increasing demand for well-being provision for the officers who need it.
The impact of trauma is deeply debilitating and for many years officers felt that they could not speak out about it. But we have now seen clearly how damaging that can be. We absolutely must take the mental health of our police officers seriously and give them the support they need by including this requirement in the covenant.
In supporting Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I declare an interest as an honorary member of the National Association of Retired Police Officers—NARPO. Why should former police officers not receive help and support and access to training when they require it? Many go on to do valuable work in other careers and the community and often need help with access courses.
My Amendment 6, which is an amendment to Amendment 5, as we have heard, seeks to insert the National Association of Retired Police Officers to the oversight board. I believe it is essential, as many of those former officers still need support. I have spoken on a number of occasions about the impact of being a police officer on an individual’s mental well-being, both during their time in the force and when they have left. The Bill will make it mandatory for the Home Secretary to publish a report on the police covenant each year outlining the work that has been done to protect officers and ensure that they are properly supported following the sacrifices they have made to be part of the force.
It is important that this report is considered by an independent oversight board, which can hold the Government to account on the work that they are doing around the police covenant, and they are not simply left to mark their own homework, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said.
Among those organisations that oversee the report, there must be an organisation which represents the police officers of the past, who, as I said, often continue to live with the effects of their job long after they have departed. Police officers bear witness to some of the most traumatic events and sacrifice so much, placing themselves in danger in order to protect society. It is therefore absolutely vital that their contribution is also acknowledged and any support that they need is given throughout their life. Placing the National Association of Retired Police Officers among the organisations giving oversight to the covenant ensures that officers past and present are supported in the continued challenges that a life in policing can bring.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 7. Every year, it costs £5 million to operate the two police treatment centres; 89% of that income is generated by donations from serving and retired police officers. The remainder comes from various sources: fundraising events, legacy donations, hospitality and lottery money. Noble Lords will note that not only do the PTCs save the NHS huge amounts of money by treating our police officers who present with trauma injuries; they treat psychological trauma as well. The PTCs are a charity—they do not get any money from the Government or the NHS. There should be some acknowledgement that the work that they do not only saves the NHS money but enables police officers to return to work much more quickly than they would otherwise have done if they had had to wait for NHS appointments—for physiotherapy, in particular. Have your Lordships tried to get an appointment with an NHS physiotherapist recently? Officers may also need mental health services appointments urgently. My amendment addresses those concerns and urges the Government to tell health providers that they must address the needs of police officers and ensure that they get the same recognition for treatment as that for members of the armed services.

Baroness Brinton: My Lords, I was unable to speak at Second Reading on this topic of the police covenant. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already noted, this is an extraordinarily large and complex Bill, and Second Reading speakers were limited to a mere three minutes, meaning that, inevitably, some matters could not be raised. I apologise for raising what is from my perspective a new issue. Before I begin, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Harris for her many years of campaigning for the well-being and support of police officers.
I support all the amendments in this group, Amendments 1 to 7, which seek to ensure that police officers and former police officers have access to health services and particularly to mental health support, and to set this down in the Bill as an equivalent of the Armed Forces covenant. I will come on to the covenant later in my contribution.
We must recognise that our police officers and other emergency service personnel are on the front line day in, day out, often facing many things daily that ordinary members of the public would hope never to see once in their lives. That for decades police officers have “manned up” and internalised problems, because that was the culture, perhaps makes mental health pressures even more inevitable. The Police Federation reports that resilience in the service is at an all-time low and that officers are being put under inordinate amounts of pressure, which is taking its toll on their health and well-being. Even worse, the unprecedented cuts to the police service have meant that officers are under more strain now than ever before. While many are asked to do more and more with fewer resources, and have risen admirably to the challenge, it is inevitable that the increased pressures they are facing will have an impact on them, mentally and physically.
The Police Federation campaign “Protect the Protectors” noted that between 2015 and 2017, over 20 police officers took their own lives each year. That is almost two a month. Something must change. Research has shown that emergency workers are twice more likely than the public to identify problems at work as the main cause of their mental health problems, but they are also significantly less likely to seek help—the “man up” culture. Therefore, it is good that in 2017, the Police Federation developed a nine-point plan for police organisations to work with it, supporting serving staff and ensuring that the well-being and mental health of staff is properly delivered as soon as it is needed.
There are 48 organisations that have worked in partnership with the Police Federation and with the mental health charity Mind. The guide that they have produced has all the information that employers need to set up and deliver mental health support in all blue-light organisations. This week, another excellent campaign, the Blue Light group, has reported that 87% of emergency responders have experienced stress and poor mental health. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was looking for good news, and it is that 83% of those who accessed this support through their organisation found it helpful. Mind tells me that the Home Office funding for this essential work—which has been running since 2015—is due to run out in March 2022. Can the Minister confirm that the Home Office will continue  the support and funding for this vital work, not just support for blue-light workers but a blue-light service for blue-light workers?
Some officers are very badly affected and need more than can be offered by counselling and other internal support. The Police Federation tells the story of Richard, a DCI with a provisional diagnosis of PTSD when he sought help, which explains much of the pressure and distress that so many officers face.
Richard said: “What you see takes its toll, but it is not just the incidents themselves, it’s everything that goes with it. The stress, the workload and the IT problems all add up, and on top of that, you add the other things. First, it is a culture, particularly if you want to progress through the ranks, where it feels like you can’t be seen to fail or say no and that you must be available 24/7 and constantly get results. You look around, and no one else seems to be struggling. No one talks about it. We don’t all sit around like some sort of support group. In fact, a lot of the time you are in competition with each other.
Second, we have lost a lot of the mechanism and time to decompress. For all its faults, one thing that the canteen culture allowed for was the ability to unwind and process what you had just seen, just to sit with your mates and talk it through, and a lot of the time and space has been lost.
Third, we have almost stopped reacting like human beings. I’m not saying we should all go around hugging each other all the time, but sometimes it could really help, but people are too scared to make physical contact.”
Richard and many other officers will carry their condition with them and will often need access to NHS mental health services, and that too is a problem. We know that in August the NHS reported an official waiting list for mental health services of 1.6 million people, with estimates that more than 8 million people cannot even get on to those waiting lists at the moment. Those with severe and chronic mental health problems are finding access to services, even if they are in the system, is hard, especially if they are facing a crisis.
Saffron Cordery, deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, which represents England’s 54 specialist mental health trusts, said:
“These estimates are dismaying. It is deeply concerning that around 8 million people are struggling with their mental health but are unable to access care because they are not yet deemed to be unwell enough.
This shows the extent to which, sadly, NHS mental health services, despite significant improvements, are still unable to give people the immediate care and support they need. Behind every one of those 8 million is an individual who would benefit from treatment. This is the treatment gap we urgently need to close.”
The Guardian reported:
“NHS Providers says that the amount spent on mental health care in England needs to rise from £14.3bn to at least £17.15bn from next year to help cope with spiralling demand. ‘As a minimum, the mental health sector needs [an additional] £850 million a year to treat at current levels and deal with the backlog, plus a minimum of £2bn to deal with the most urgent capital demands [for upgrading units and building new facilities],” said Cordery.”
This means that police and emergency responders with PTSD or severe depression acquired through their service to the country will continue to face long  delays before they get the level of mental health services that they need from the NHS. Will the Minister say what support, financial or directional, the Home Office will provide to ensure that the police and other emergency responders get the appropriate mental health support services that they need as soon as they need them? If they do not get it, as with our armed services, it means that they will often be off sick and unable to fulfil their duties, which will put further pressure on the service.
I turn now to the proposals for a covenant, which I welcome. I support all the amendments that relate to this. I particularly welcome Amendment 6 in the name of my noble friend Lady Harris. Mental health trauma does not disappear on the day of retirement or of leaving the service. I shall comment briefly on the practicalities of the Armed Forces covenant because in principle it looks good, and it is welcome that in this Bill the Secretary of State has to report to Parliament, but there are some severe problems with the covenant.
While there is a commitment to individuals on what they can access, shockingly there is no duty on any of the public services to provide that and, even worse, services from central government are excluded from the covenant. The result is that, for example, a doctor can refuse to add a veteran to their list, or in this case perhaps a police officer who has retired. With the current shortage of GPs, many lists are full and it would be difficult, but there is no duty on CCGs to help find such a person access to local services. If they have to wait to get on a GP waiting list and they have moved into a different area, it will mean that any other services they have been accessing through hospital or mental health services will be paused until they are into the new system.
However, the most serious omission for me—that is true of this Bill as well—is the exclusion of government department services from any responsibility under the Armed Forces covenant, let alone a duty. I have amendments on this and some of the other issues I have raised on the covenant in the Armed Forces Bill, which is currently going through your Lordships’ House. The Home Secretary and Ministers need to understand that in creating a covenant, they create demand. However, without a duty for any of the bodies to provide that, it is nothing more than warm words. These amendments try to remedy that, but they will need to go further. Can the Minister assure me that the Government, government departments and other public duty areas such as councils will be required to deliver the duties under the covenant?

Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my interests in the world of policing as set out in the register, particularly in policing ethics, both with the Greater Manchester Police and the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
At Second Reading I referred briefly to the culture of policing. I did not specifically mention a policing covenant given that time was so short, but I have been intrigued by the debate we have had this afternoon. I note the way in which Members have referred to the Armed Forces covenant. That is helpful in some ways, although I am just a little concerned. As I said at Second Reading, the heart of the policing model is  that our police are civilians in uniform; they are not the Armed Forces. We need to be careful not to put police too easily into the same category as the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces are agents of the state while police are agents of society in a slightly different way. That is an important civilian distinction I would want always to hold before us.
Nevertheless, I support the amendments in this group, and I believe that we can do better for policing. A covenant is the right way forward—we are working on a similar thing for clergy in the Church of England at the moment—and these amendments will strengthen the initial proposals to help us that way. Over these last 18 months, when I have been chairing Operation Talla, the Covid operation ethics committee, on behalf of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, we have had in our minds and hearts not just how to police effectively but the tensions and pressures put on policing during the pandemic and how to advise police forces to implement the various regulations that were coming from government, sometimes in rapid succession, in ways that were proportionate and would not place undue extra pressure on the mental health of police. We monitored sickness rates throughout that process, and it has been a great example of how we worked together to ensure that policing did not lose its civilian base in the course of the pandemic. Therefore, I support these amendments, but I treat with a little caution how closely we draw parallels with the military covenant.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I no longer have to declare an interest but some Members here may know that I was until May this year police and crime commissioner in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. As such, I will make a very brief contribution to this first debate in Committee.
I personally support—I hope from my experience—the early amendments that have been proposed. As has been said already, it is quite clear that anyone who works with the police nowadays, knows them or sees them closely at work, will know that for a long time, I suspect, as in the rest of society, mental health, mental illness and all that follows from it was not given anywhere near the importance it should have been. I am glad to say that it is my experience, certainly in the police force I was close to, and I am sure in others too, that chief officer teams are now giving the issue of mental health due regard. That is why any covenant that left this out would be lacking; I do not want to comment on the covenant— good points have been made on it.
I urge the Minister and the Government to consider seriously these obviously non-partisan suggestions, which are meant to be helpful. That is all I want to say, but my experience tells me that this is becoming a larger and larger issue as year follows year for police forces up and down the country.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I start also by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond for her tireless work in supporting police officers in the many different roles that she has in addition to her work in this House. It was particularly important to hear about the work of police treatment centres, although they clearly do not have the capacity  to deal with all officers who are affected. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his opening remarks, talked about only being able to imagine what police officers go through. I hope to enlighten the Committee about some of those experiences.
I have Amendment 4 in this group, but I support all these amendments, though perhaps with a qualification on one of them. My experience in the police service was not, in many respects, very different from that of others who have served or those who continue to serve, except perhaps that I was the most junior officer on my relief or response team, as it would now be known. For 18 months, as the junior officer delegated, I was the one who dealt with all the sudden deaths. My first appearance in court was at the Coroner’s Court, when the husband of an elderly couple had taken an overdose of prescription medication. Having worked night duty until 4 am, I was allowed to “slide off”, as I had to be at the mortuary at 9 am to identify the body. I had not seen a dead body before that night—I was 19 years of age—and I was unprepared for the sight and smell of at least half a dozen other bodies that had been opened up for examination by the pathologist when I arrived at the mortuary. It is an important role for a police officer to identify the body that he or she found as being the same one that the pathologist is about to perform the post-mortem on. I will not go into graphic details, but the Committee needs to get a flavour of the trauma that police officers are exposed to.
Noble Lords might think that the first case is the one that sticks in one’s mind, but whether it is the open-top car that overturned at speed, with no protection for the passengers in the back from the road surface, or the pensioner not seen for weeks in the summer, with swarms of flies on her badly decomposed body that was sticking to the bed when the undertakers tried to remove her, or the charred bodies in a number of fires that I attended, the impact on one’s mental health is considerable and cumulative. I can still picture and smell those scenes; I remember the taste that they left in my mouth.
It is not just the horror of such scenes; it is the emotional impact as well. There was a young man in his early 20s who had hung himself from a coat hook on the back of a door. There was a young mother, whose normal session with her psychiatrist had been cancelled because of Christmas; finding a name and address in her handbag next to her body at the base of a tower block, I went to the address, knocked on the door and was invited by her husband into a room where her young children were playing under the Christmas tree with the toys that the mother had bought them. If that was not bad enough, when I suggested that we ought to go into a different room so that I could tell the husband the tragic news that his wife had committed suicide, he asked me, “How did she do it?”. Experiences like that, as noble Lords can hear, I still vividly remember.
It is not just the deaths. I remember a young man who had a broken glass slammed into his face. We had to take him to hospital in the police van, as there were no ambulances available—some things do not change. I remember the terrified look on his face as he shook uncontrollably from the shock. Another man jumped  from the fourth floor and landed on spiked railings. We held him up for what seemed to be an eternity, while the fire brigade cut around the railings; they could not use oxyacetylene torches because the heat would have transmitted to his body. Then we had to hold him in the ambulance between two trolleys, with the railings still through his body.
Then there are the dangers. On 11 April 1981, as a police sergeant I was given 10 constables and six plastic riot shields and told to clear Mayall Road in Brixton of rioters, as the fire brigade were being attacked and therefore could not extinguish the burning cars and buildings that the petrol bombers had set alight. Coming under barrages of bricks and lumps of paving slab, trying to edge forward, hoping that the burning cars would not explode or the burning buildings collapse on us, and trying to keep my officers safe and do the job that we were given, was another unforgettable experience.
It is not just my direct personal experiences. Many years later, I was a chief inspector of Brixton. The officer worst affected when two members of his team were shot, receiving life-changing injuries, was the officer posted to the front desk, who felt he was stuck inside and unable to help his colleagues. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned partners of police officers, many of whom are affected by feeling helpless in a similar way when their partners face trauma.
It is not just about the tragedy and danger that police officers have to confront every day; there is sometimes the trauma that the organisation inflicts on its own. We will consider later the impact that misconduct proceedings—what in my time were called complaints and discipline proceedings—can have on officers; even when there is little or no evidence, officers are subjected to months or even years of uncertainty. I will leave that to another group of amendments.
Not a week goes past when I do not dream that I am still a serving police officer trying to deal with some impossibly stressful situation. It was easier when I was serving, as most problems were solvable, albeit sometimes at personal cost, but the impacts, similar to the horrors and dangers that our brave military face, can be considerable and long-lasting. So it is good, albeit a long time coming, that the Bill places the publication of the police covenant report on a statutory basis. But it needs to be more than simply a response from the Secretary of State if she considers, in respect of any matter covered by the report, that members or former members of the police workforce are at a disadvantage compared with others.
Under the Armed Forces covenant there is an array of specialist and enhanced mental health provisions for serving personnel, reservists—similar to special constables—service families and veterans. I do not want to enter into a competition over the similarities and differences between members of the Armed Forces and of police forces in terms of which experiences are more harrowing, emotionally impactive or dangerous. I completely accept the point made by the right reverend Prelate about the difference between civilians in uniform and the Armed Forces. However, I remind the Committee that the experiences of police officers happen here in  the UK, often on the streets where they live, making it more difficult for them to put psychological distance between their experiences and their everyday lives.
I am saying that the impact of the kinds of experiences that I had as a police officer—and far worse experienced by colleagues, both serving and retired, whether dealing with child pornography and child abuse, retrieving the bodies of those killed in the 7 July bombings in 2005, or having a colleague killed in front of them—go far beyond what most people have to face in their lifetime. They, and we, as my noble friend Lady Brinton has said, need and deserve enhanced specialist mental health support similar to that provided by the Armed Forces. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, alluded to, the care and welfare of police officers, serving and retired, may not be at the forefront of people’s minds in the light of recent events. But in the light of the sacrifices that our police officers make each and every day to keep us safe, the least we can do is provide the mental health support that they, and we, need.
I am reminded of a debate many years ago, when football hooliganism was at its peak and an argument was put forward by a football supporter that “If the police treat us like animals, we will behave like animals”. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if they have heard this before, but there is a clear distinction between explaining the possible causes of something and justifying something—and I am not, of course, justifying any form of misconduct by police officers. But without the care that police officers need to cope with the trauma they face, we cannot expect their behaviour to be exemplary in every situation, no matter what the provocation.
The intention of my amendment is to ensure that police officers, serving and retired, and their families receive the enhanced and specialist care and support they need. If I have understood correctly, that is the intention of Amendment 7 from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, placing a duty on local health bodies. But I believe it is the duty of the Home Secretary to ensure that adequate provision is made, although I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, that Amendment 7 reflects the obligations on local health bodies under the Armed Forces covenant. Whatever local health bodies’ assessment of the need may be, in the same way that the Ministry of Defence has played a pivotal role in ensuring similar support is provided for the Armed Forces, the Home Office should do the same for police officers.
It is clear from what I have said that we on these Benches support Amendment 1, which my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond has signed, and Amendment 3, which she has also signed. We also support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on an oversight board. It is essential that the police covenant report reflects the needs of rank and file police officers in particular, so it is essential that it is scrutinised by the Police Federation, the only legally recognised body to represent the interests of police officers.
My noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond makes the additional point that the National Association of Retired Police Officers should also be represented, and I declare an interest as a member of NARPO. As I have explained, I still suffer from the effects of trauma  I faced in the police service, and it is important that the needs of retired officers are also addressed in police covenant reports.
I am unclear as to what resettlement schemes currently operate in the police service, but certainly such programmes did exist to help officers transition from the police when I was serving—in particular those like me who gave all their working lives to policing. I do not count what I do here as work. So I am unsure to what extent Amendment 2 is necessary. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the Committee on what current provision is available in terms of resettlement schemes.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me for speaking at length on this issue, not least because it has been motivated to some extent by personal interest—or, should I say, to ensure that others do not have to cope largely without support in the way I and my colleagues and former colleagues have had to until now. I am pleased to be able to start this Bill on a positive note, although we believe that this part of the Bill can be improved, as colleagues around the House and I have suggested.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in an incredibly thoughtful debate this afternoon. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to his first Committee and the tone in which he opened this debate. I also pay tribute to his father. I jolly well hope that he is sitting at home watching this afternoon. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, for setting out their amendments to the first clause of the Bill, which relates to the police covenant.
I echo other noble Lords’ comments on PC Harper and Sergeant Matt Ratana, who gave their lives protecting the general public. To echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, there is no doubt that our brave police encounter some of the most challenging circumstances on a daily basis, often operating in some of the most difficult and traumatic situations imaginable. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for outlining, albeit in very graphic detail, some of the experiences he has had to endure during his policing career. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for bringing to this House a unique experience as Parliament’s only PCC, and I wish him well in his retirement.
What we have talked about this afternoon is what makes the police covenant so important, with its central tenet the health and well-being of members and former members of the police workforce, their physical protection, and support for their families. It is a priority for the Government, and I am very pleased that we have brought this forward.
We recognise the very positive intention behind Amendments 1, 3 and 4, and I could not disagree what most noble Lords have said. However, what I would say is that they are not necessary, on the basis that consideration of mental health, including having regard to programmes offering advice on assessment and treatment, the impact of trauma and support and the training for health and resilience, are already well within scope of Clause 1, under the banner of health and well-being.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me to outline what the provision includes, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Brinton, talked about PTSD, which affects an awful lot of police officers, both when serving and after their career. I shall outline some of those things. First, we will ensure that occupational health standards are embedded in all forces, holding chiefs to account for providing the right quality and investment in their workforce. The National Police Wellbeing Service has been working hard to embed occupational health standards in forces, including for mental health. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who said that people should receive the right support that they need at the right time. That is absolutely central to providing effective mental health services.
The other thing that will be contained is consideration of a new chief medical officer for policing in England and Wales, and a review of what a good support model for families looks like, drawing on established good practice and research from other sectors and international partners. Once agreed, forces will be required to implement locally, bespoke to their local infrastructure, development of training for GPs around the role of the police, similar to military veterans GP training, and the development of pre-deployment mental health support provided to the police workforce, particularly in light of the Covid-19 pandemic and the effect that this will have had on the police workforce, some of whom I have already spoken to.
There was quite a lot of talk about the interface between the Armed Forces and the police covenant, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester clearly made the distinction between the two forces, which are very different in terms of the demands on them. The work under the police covenant will recognise the specific issues that affect those working or who have worked in policing—to answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, it will include those who have retired—as a result of their role, and will seek to provide support to them and their families in addressing these issues. The police covenant and the legislation underpinning it have been drafted to ensure that they reflect the specific, unique needs of our police as they currently stand.
The heading is deliberately broad to allow the Secretary of State to consider the issues as they arise. We consciously framed the provisions in this way to enable a flexible approach to ensure that the issues that matter most to members and former members of the police can be taken into account and addressed in the annual report as they arise. This flexibility will allow the police covenant to evolve to respond to the most pertinent needs of current and former members of the police workforce in a timely manner. What we do not want to do is create a hierarchy of issues by explicitly listing specific issues in the Bill, where they will fall within those broader priorities.
While we appreciate that this is not the intention, these amendments could give rise to doubt about the importance of scope of other critical issues identified by the current and former police workforce, simply because they are not listed in the Bill. We want the police to feel the benefit of a covenant based on  emerging issues and trends identified through collaboration with them and focused on removing the disadvantages they face as a result of their role in policing. To this end, the clause explicitly enables other pertinent priorities beyond the three broad categories specified in Clause 1(2)(a) to (c) to be addressed if considered appropriate. We think this strikes the right balance in directing the substance of the report without being too prescriptive.
Within the broad priorities identified in the legislation, work has already begun on the ground. Our initial focus with regard to the covenant includes improving mental health support for officers and staff, particularly ahead of deployment, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned; focusing on ensuring that occupational health standards are embedded in all forces; and considering options for appointing a new chief medical officer for policing, as I have said. These activities will be critical to ensuring that those officers suffering from the impact of trauma or mental ill-health have access to the support they need. This will include support and training on health and resilience as appropriate to the issues identified.
We will also continue to fund the National Police Wellbeing Service. The service is helping forces to identify where there is most risk to mental health and developing work around building resilience, as well as putting in place support for those who need it in response to traumatic events. This includes signposting to mental health support and resources. This shows that the issues raised by noble Lords are already being taken very seriously and prioritised.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about the resettlement programme. We understand that there is a need to look at support for former members of the police workforce and assure the noble Lord that this it is within the scope of the government. We will be looking at what the specific need is with our stakeholders, including NARPO, to determine what that support model should look like.
I think I have slightly pre-empted my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but Amendment 2 would require the Secretary of State to consider the support needed by officers and staff on their retirement from the police workforce. The scope provided by the current wording of Clause 1 would include those people at or nearing the end of their police careers, and career transition support is being considered as part of the ongoing work. Through the governance process we have developed, we will keep under review the support our police receive to ensure that they have the right access at the right time.
Amendment 5 seeks to place the Police Covenant Oversight Board on a statutory footing, make provision for its membership and provide for an independent chair. Amendment 6 seeks to add the National Association of Retired Police Officers to the list in Amendment 5 of organisations to be represented on the board. We have established the Police Covenant Oversight Board on a non-statutory basis to drive the strategic direction of the police covenant, set priorities and monitor progress to feed into the Home Secretary’s annual report to Parliament. The board comprises key stakeholders from across the policing sector and first met in July. The second meeting, chaired by the Minister for Crime and Policing, took place earlier this month.
We expect the challenges that the police face will continue to change and develop. We intend the police covenant to evolve accordingly. We recognise that there will be many stakeholders critical to the resolution of the changing, emerging issues that the police workforce face. We have therefore sought to retain flexibility by creating a non-statutory board, through which we can involve relevant stakeholders, including NARPO, as appropriate, depending on the nature of the priorities identified. These arrangements are intended to reflect the flexibility underpinning the legislative provisions.
In preparing the police covenant report, which the board will feed into, the Secretary of State must seek the views of anyone she considers appropriate in preparing the report, which will naturally include the appropriate partners in policing. This broad approach provides the Secretary of State with the flexibility to seek the views of policing stakeholders outside membership of the board should she believe that is appropriate.
We think the current approach to the governance framework, including the arrangements for chairing the board, is entirely appropriate. The Home Secretary will be held accountable for the priorities of the covenant, through the annual report that she will be required to lay in Parliament. With that in mind, a government Minister must play an active role in this work, through chairing the board. We recognise that having an independent presence on the board is important though. To that end, we are progressing plans to appoint at least one independent board member. We aim to pursue an approach that retains joint accountability with policing stakeholders for the delivery of priorities identified under the covenant, while incorporating an element of independence in response to stakeholder feedback. We will review these governance arrangements periodically and, in doing so, will consider the independence of input and challenge to the board.
Finally, Amendment 7 seeks to create a duty on specified
“health service bodies to have due regard to police covenant principles”
in the exercise of relevant health functions. I recognise that this stems from provisions in the Armed Forces Bill, which amends the existing provisions in respect of the Armed Forces covenant. Again, I recognise the positive intention behind this amendment, but the two covenants are at totally different stages of evolution. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester says, they are in different contexts. The Armed Forces covenant has been in existence for some years, and its structure continues to evolve with increasing prominence. The police covenant has just begun and, while it too will evolve and grow, it must be given space in which to develop and embed as its own entity, operating in a different space.
At this stage, therefore, it is premature to include a duty on specific public bodies to have due regard to the police covenant, without first establishing the key issues involved, identifying robust evidence and the options to respond to those issues, and considering the need in consultation with relevant public bodies.
I hope, in light of my rather lengthy explanation and assurance, that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Coaker: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in a very thoughtful and helpful discussion on this first group of amendments, as we begin our discussion on the Bill. I also thank the Minister for her reply. The way in which she tried to respond directly to the points the amendments were making was very helpful for the Committee on a number of issues, so I thank her and I think the Committee would thank her as well.
Having said that, and having been a Minister myself, I am always slightly suspicious when the term used for amendments is that they “are not necessary”. That was always a term I was told to use when I was not quite sure where I was. I say gently that when they “are not necessary” what I want to do—and I am sure other noble Lords would—is reflect on the Minister’s remarks to see if they indeed meet the points the amendments are making.
I have a couple of points to make. For example, the Minister said on a number of occasions, “We will keep this under review”, “We will look at how it works out” and “We will try to understand how the covenant operates in practice”. What many of us would say is that we can learn. The Minister mentioned the Armed Forces covenant, and I take the right reverend Prelate’s point about this, but we can learn from what the Armed Forces covenant has done. It seems a bit strange to say that this is not the same as the Armed Forces covenant. Everyone recognises that, but why wait to find the same thing happening with the police covenant, when we have seen from the Armed Forces covenant that for either central government or other public bodies to have due regard is important?
I note the point the Minister made about NARPO and the importance of the involvement of retired police officers. So, there are a number of points that we will need to reflect on as we go forward from Committee to Report, but with those brief remarks I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Amendment 1 withdrawn.
Amendments 2 to 5 not moved.

Lord Duncan of Springbank: I cannot call Amendment 6, as it is an amendment to Amendment 5.
Clause 1 agreed.
Amendment 7 not moved.

Amendment 8

Lord Paddick: Moved by Lord Paddick
8: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—“Scrutiny of investigation: timeliness(1) The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 are amended as follows. (2) After regulation 13 insert—“13A Scrutiny of investigation: timeliness (1) A legally qualified person within the meaning of regulation 28(4)(a) and (6) of the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 shall be appointed to scrutinise the information provided pursuant to regulation 13.  (2) On each occasion where information is provided in writing under regulation 13 paragraph (1) or (2) the legally qualified person appointed under paragraph (1) shall determine whether there is good and sufficient reason for—(a) the time already taken; and(b) realistically anticipated to be needed for completion of the investigation.(3) In determining whether there is good and sufficient reason under paragraph (2) the legally qualified person may have regard to any relevant matter, and shall have particular regard to—(a) whether the investigation has been efficient and effective;(b) whether there has been unnecessary or unreasonable delay having regard to complexity and seriousness of the case;(c) the impact upon the officer and others;(d) any anticipated further delay;(e) the public interest and affect upon confidence in the police disciplinary system; and(f) representations made on behalf of any person entitled to receive a copy of the information provided under regulation 13.(4) Unless the legally qualified person determines that there is good and sufficient reason under paragraph (2)(a) and (b) then—(a) all investigation into possible misconduct or gross misconduct shall be terminated forthwith; and(b) no disciplinary proceedings may be initiated in respect of the matters under investigation.(5) Nothing in this provision shall have any effect in relation to any criminal investigation.”(3) After regulation 19 insert—“19A Scrutiny of investigation: timeliness (1) A legally qualified person within the meaning of regulation 28(4)(a) and (6) shall be appointed to scrutinise the information provided pursuant to regulation 19.(2) On each occasion where information is provided in writing under regulation 19(1) the legally qualified person appointed under paragraph (1) shall determine whether there is good and sufficient reason for—(a) the time already taken; and(b) realistically anticipated to be needed for completion of the investigation.(3) In determining whether there is good and sufficient reason under paragraph (2) the legally qualified person may have regard to any relevant matter, and shall have particular regard to—(a) whether the investigation has been efficient and effective;(b) whether there has been unnecessary or unreasonable delay having regard to complexity and seriousness of the case;(c) the impact upon the officer and others;(d) any anticipated further delay;(e) the public interest and affect upon confidence in the police disciplinary system; and (f) representations made on behalf of any person entitled to receive a copy of the information provided under regulation 19.(4) Unless the legally qualified person determines that there is good and sufficient reason under paragraph (2)(a) and (b) then—(a) all investigation into possible misconduct or gross misconduct shall be terminated forthwith; and  (b) no disciplinary proceedings may be initiated in respect of the matters under investigation.(5) Nothing in this provision shall have any effect in relation to any criminal investigation.””Member’s explanatory statementThis amends the Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 to provide for a mechanism for scrutiny and consequences where there are delays in disciplinary proceedings being brought against police officers.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, there has been much criticism of the police complaints and misconduct process from the perspective of members of the public being unable to achieve justice, but much less has been said about the impact on the officers under investigation, to which I alluded in the last group. When we come to consider Clause 43 and Schedule 4 to the Bill, I will remind the House of the changes the Government brought about in the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to limit the length of time members of the public could be kept under investigation by the police and on police bail. The Government accepted the unfairness of suspects being kept in suspense for months, even years, with the threat of prosecution still hanging over them. This is something many police officers face, with even graver potential consequences than someone who is accused of a criminal offence—potentially losing their livelihoods through being sacked or required to resign from the police service.
When I was a police inspector in charge of a relief, or shift, of officers, a woman who had been arrested and taken to one of my police stations made an allegation of indecent assault by a police officer during a routine search to ensure that she did not have anything that could cause injury while she was being held in a cell. I heard a commotion in the custody suite and went to see what was happening, only to find her spreadeagled on the floor with one officer on each limb. The situation was explained to me: she had resisted being searched, fighting with the female officer designated to search her, and had to be restrained. I asked the prisoner if she was okay and if she was going to behave herself now, and then ordered two female officers to take her into a cell to be searched, much to the concern of male officers, who I ordered to remain just outside the cell door.
Another prisoner, who was present in the custody suite and subsequently interviewed in prison by officers from the complaints unit, corroborated to some extent the female prisoner’s account—a scuffle and then being held down on the floor—although her allegation was actually of indecent assault by a female officer during the search, out of sight of the witness. When the complaints unit took all the female officers who had been on duty that night away for questioning simultaneously and suspended one from duty, I asked that I be interviewed as I was also a witness who had seen nothing untoward.
As a result, I was interviewed as a suspect under caution in a criminal investigation. Although I had already qualified for a promotion, it was delayed for 18 months, and the local area police commander recommended that I face a full disciplinary hearing for lack of supervision, with a recommendation that I be sacked—perhaps related to having recently separated from my wife and having sought permission to cohabit with a man, or perhaps not.
The day that the local area commander retired from the police service, the headquarters complaints and discipline department responsible for scheduling discipline hearings dropped all proceedings against me, and I was promoted. But in the intervening period, my health suffered, my marriage ended and my career was on hold, even though I had done nothing wrong and, arguably, in coming forward as a witness, everything right.
This is but a relatively minor, albeit personal, example of the impact that prolonged police misconduct investigations can have, which, unlike criminal investigations, have no effective time limits placed upon them.
In another, more recent example, two police officers from Nottinghamshire faced a similar scenario. Both were involved in the detention of a female who had been arrested and charged with very serious offences at the Bridewell police station in the city. She was behaving in a violent and suicidal manner. Both police officers were accused of assault as they individually dealt with her in custody and tried to prevent her from self-harming. Those officers had to endure seven years and three investigations by the Independent Police Complaints Commission and its successor, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, of what was, in essence, a straightforward assault allegation which was fully captured on CCTV. When it eventually came to a hearing in April 2018, the Police Federation successfully argued abuse of process, due to breaches of regulations, lack of disclosure, errors and delays by the investigating body. It was subsequently discovered that it had dismissed evidence that would have cleared both officers.
In November 2013, officers in South Bedfordshire responded to a call about a male who was attempting to kick down the door of an address before running in and out of shops and into the road. The male was detained for mental health assessment and restrained for his own safety. He was placed in a police vehicle and transported to a police station. Regrettably, he died while in police custody. One of the officers gave a full account of his actions. His clothes were seized and, by the end of the week, he was informed that he was a suspect in a criminal investigation for gross negligence manslaughter, unlawful act manslaughter, misconduct in a public office and offences under the health and safety Act. The following week he was suspended from duty.
Four years later, the officer was informed that the CPS had decided that no charges should be brought again him, but he remained suspended. The suspension was eventually rescinded in April 2019, when he returned to work, although in a restricted capacity. During that time, he had received very few updates from the IPCC and was not given any explanation as to why it was taking so long.
In February 2020, six years and three months after the incident, the officer attended an IOPC-directed gross misconduct hearing. During those proceedings, it was discovered that an investigation review had been conducted by the IPCC in 2014—six years earlier. The IPCC had admitted that it had had insufficient resources and experience to conclude the investigation expeditiously.  Inconsistencies were also discovered between the CCTV evidence and the witness evidence. As a result, Bedfordshire Police withdrew from prosecuting the misconduct hearing. The IOPC eventually withdrew the direction to hold a misconduct hearing. The officer was cleared of any wrongdoing and returned to work on full duties in March 2020.
The impact on the officer’s health and relationships has been devastating. One of the other officers involved was deemed too ill to give evidence at the inquest because of the post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the incident and the way in which the aftermath had been dealt with.
Police misconduct hearings are already chaired by an independent, legally qualified person, taken in turn from a pool of qualified chairs. This amendment would see these independent, legally qualified chairs who are experienced in the operation of the police misconduct system, reviewing misconduct investigations to ensure that there is good and sufficient reason for the length of time taken to bring misconduct proceedings, balanced against the seriousness of the allegations.
There is a requirement in existing regulations for those conducting police misconduct proceedings to write to the local policing body if the proceedings have not been concluded within 12 months, and again every six months after that. These are reported to directly elected mayors and police and crime commissioners, none of whom are likely to have the level of expertise and experience that the independent, legally qualified people who chair misconduct hearings have. Indeed, in the light of the events last week, one has to question whether some police and crime commissioners might be best placed to judge police misconduct at all.
The amendment would require such reports to go to one of the independent, legally qualified chairs instead. Currently there is no power for the directly elected mayor or the police and crime commissioner to make any directions as a result of receiving the report of the delay in the investigation. The amendment would allow the independent, legally qualified chair to terminate misconduct proceedings if there were no good or sufficient reasons for the delay.
I know from bitter personal experience how devastating prolonged periods under misconduct investigation can be, and the impact it can have on your career, your health and your loved ones—even more so when you know that you have done nothing wrong. This amendment simply gives independent oversight of misconduct proceedings by legally qualified, experienced misconduct hearing chairs to hold the police and the IOPC to account to ensure that these matters are concluded without unreasonable delay. I beg to move.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, it has been fascinating and very moving to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but I am coming at this from a completely different direction. Although I am partly thinking about the police officers involved, I am also thinking about people who bring complaints against police officers. I have seen the police complaints system at first hand. At some point in the past, a Met Police sergeant came to me and told me that he had seen a few officers deleting files that the Met held on me.  These were files that I had asked to see and had been told did not exist—so I saw the police complaints system at first hand. I took a complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, a vastly underresourced organisation trying to do its best on very difficult work. This was not an emotional issue for me—it was a professional, work issue—but that Met Police sergeant suffered PTSD and was essentially hounded out of the Met Police because he had come to me as somebody who wanted the truth exposed, and so was in a whistleblowing situation. I could not do anything for him, but I persisted with my complaint.
There is a saying that justice delayed is justice denied, and it is true on both sides—perhaps more when people are emotionally involved in the complaint they are making, which as I say did not really apply to me. In a way it is doubly true for complaints against the police, because there is a power imbalance. The police are seen to retain their positions, authority, power and legitimacy while complaints are ongoing, and this can be extremely upsetting.
This issue has come to light because of the allegations against the murderer of Sarah Everard. It is staggering, and truly terrifying, that the police had within their ranks somebody they knew, jokingly perhaps, as “The Rapist”. A noble Lord from this House, a previous Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who is not in his place today, said in an interview on the radio that it was not true that he was called “The Rapist”—but he is the only person I have heard saying that was not true. Perhaps another ex-Metropolitan Police Commissioner here might know better.
So it is time to cut the delays that everybody on both sides experiences in police complaints and disciplinary hearings and, most importantly, to give the independent watchdog the resources it needs to do the job. I have complained in the past about the number of police officers it employs, because it seems to me that you do not necessarily set a police officer to catch a police officer—but in fact it is so underresourced that I feel it would benefit from almost anybody if it increased its staff. So this is something that the Government have to deal with.

Lord Hogan-Howe: My Lords, I support this amendment. The basic problem around IOPC investigations is one of timeliness and quality. I am afraid it has gone on an awful long time. To be fair, from time to time it concerns police investigations under other bodies, but it has persisted, despite the fact that the organisation has changed over the years from the IPCC to now the IOPC. This particularly affected groups of officers such as firearms officers, some of whom have been under investigation for in excess of 10 years. That cannot be for anyone’s good.
We talked earlier about the trauma suffered by individual officers, and that is one of the major causes of such trauma. I therefore think that some time kind of time limit would be helpful. Even in a criminal case such as murder, the point from commitment to arriving at Crown Court is expected to be of the order of 100 days. If such a complex case can be taken so quickly, it seems to me that these cases are surely susceptible to travelling far more quickly and then being decided in the hearing far more quickly, too.
There are some peculiarities around the police misconduct process which have to be understood and, I think, given some sympathy—but these things can be changed. For example, when a complaint is made, particularly where a criminal allegation is alleged, there is a transmission of the case, first from the force to the IOPC, then it may go to the CPS, and then it may go back to the IOPC and then it may go to the force. This merry-go-round goes on for months. It is not at all unusual for these cases to go for at least one year and usually more, and for there still to be no outcome.
There is a further level of complication when, for example, special evidence needs to be given in a court case. It is difficult to talk about this in public, but essentially, when intelligence is gathered by the police that cannot be shared in court and cannot be shared in a coroner’s court, a public inquiry has to be held in front of a qualified judge. All this does is lengthen the whole process. It particularly affects firearms officers when they have to justify why they shot someone and they are unable to explain the intelligence they received. It means that the whole process goes round this rigmarole again.
There are various remedies to try to resolve this. One is a simple time limit. The difficulty with a time limit is that it can be hard-line and does not fit every case. Sometimes you need some discretion. I would argue that the decision-making between the IOPC, the CPS and the force should be done in parallel and not in sequence. The consequence of it being done in sequence is that it keeps going on and on and they keep referring it back to each other. Surely, they could consider the same case in parallel and therefore reduce the time. It would be a good idea to have a legally qualified chair seriously examining the timeline and whether or not it is justified. If it is not justified, the chair should be able to intervene. If it is justified, of course the case should continue.
My final point may be to one side of the amendment, but it is important because it goes to the point about timeliness and quality. One of the challenges faced by the IOPC is that it does not always send its most experienced investigators to deal with the most complex cases. The equivalent for the police service would be that you never send your shoplifting squad to deal with a murder—that would not be very sensible. Officers build their experience in the shoplifting squad and may go on to do more complex things.
The reason may be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, that the IOPC has insufficient resources. I think it also has insufficient specialism and does not build up its expertise. When a serious case comes in—someone loses their life or it is a serious allegation—they should dispatch the A team, not the people who happen to be available. I do not think that does anyone any good when they have to deal with serious matters which the families want straight answers to and the officers want to believe that the investigators have some maturity of judgment. It is not a matter of age but a matter of experience. For those reasons, the IOPC should consider this. It is not exactly pertinent to the amendment, but it is relevant to the discussion about quality that we can fairly have about IOPC investigations at the moment.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I strongly support these amendments. I too have little confidence in the IOPC and the resources that are available to it. It was very interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said about it. We must shed some light on the timelines for these investigations, both for the police officers and for the alleged victim.
I have been within and have commanded a disciplined organisation, and I was always acutely aware of the need to complete investigations as fast as possible when something had gone wrong. If this amendment does not find favour and the noble Lord needs to return on Report, I can make a very much longer speech then.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak to Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and of which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is a co-signatory. It is an important amendment. I was particularly moved by the comments made by the noble Baroness, reminding us that of course it is from a police officer’s point of view but that this is also about a complainant’s point of view. It is from both sides that this debate has taken place.
Sometimes you look at an amendment and wonder whether it is as important as some others. Listening to the moving opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, I have been struck that this is a crucial amendment and a crucial discussion which is of huge significance to the police, communities and our country, particularly in light of issues that have arisen over the last few months. However, investigations that are delayed and drag on without resolution are completely unacceptable for the complainant and the officer in question.
I was completely unaware and absolutely astonished to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, from his experience as a former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, that officers under investigation have been waiting for 10 years. Whatever the rights and wrongs of what happened and whether they were guilty or innocent, that cannot be right. This has got to be looked at by the Minister who now has responsibility for this, wherever you come from in the debate. I am sorry if other noble Lords knew this, and that I was the only person here who was unaware of it. I knew that there were delays, but frankly, that is astonishing. We have just had a significant and important debate on protecting the mental health of our officers. One can only imagine the mental health implications for people under investigation but also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, reminded us, for people who have made the complaints. It does not serve justice for anybody.
There is some suggestion about delays in driving cases, but if she knows, can the Minister tell the Committee whether there is a particular delay in one area or a general problem across investigations? The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned firearms, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned some other examples, but is there a particular problem which emerges when a complaint is made in a particular area? There have been many references to certain  offences not being taken seriously even when complaints were made, but it would be interesting for the Minister to come back to us on that.
I think that, at its heart, this amendment is saying that if we do not get this right, public confidence is undermined and eroded, and it is of no benefit to any of us not to be confident in the system. We must believe that the investigations which take place are fair, operate in a timely manner and are done with that integrity which people can understand and believe. We all accept that. Nobody here would disagree that this is the process which must happen and should be in place. However, as we have heard, that is not happening. Therefore, the amendment rightly asks us whether the answer is to set a time limit, to lay out a process that is better and more effective. The key question for the Minister is: what plans are there to review and update the disciplinary process, to restore public confidence and to reassure all of us that, at the end of the day, not only those who are complained against can feel confident but those who are making the complaint? That is the resolution that we all want from this important amendment.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, set out, this amendment seeks to further improve the timeliness of disciplinary and misconduct proceedings against police officers. It seeks to do this by amending existing regulations governing complaint and misconduct investigations by the IOPC, as well as those conducted by force professional standards departments. In substance, they seek to introduce a new system of separate independent adjudicators with powers to close down investigations which have taken longer than 12 months, where they decide that there is no “good and sufficient” reason for delay.
Again, with this amendment, I agree with the thrust of what the noble Lord and others said, namely that disciplinary and misconduct investigations should be conducted and completed in a timely fashion, for the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Hogan-Howe. Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, when I heard “10 years” I was utterly shocked. However, this amendment comes at a time when investigation timescales are already reducing and when the Government have worked hard to reduce bureaucracy in the system and not add to it.
Under the IOPC’s predecessor, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, investigations would on average take 11 months. Since 2018, under the IOPC, that has fallen by almost 30% to just eight months. The IOPC has closed more than 90% of its cases in under 12 months and is making strong progress on the number of cases that it closes in under nine months and even in under six months. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, it is in nobody’s interest for investigations to drag on for long periods unnecessarily. We recognise the impact that this can have on everyone concerned.
It might be helpful in terms of explaining the trajectory that the Government introduced a package of reforms in February last year to the police complaints and disciplinary systems. It included new provisions to  improve timeliness, with an expectation that investigations will normally be completed within 12 months. If not, the investigating body must provide a written explanation of any delays and steps to bring the investigation to a conclusion. The Government expect the IOPC to go further, and it now has targets in its business plans to complete many of those investigations in under nine and six months, as I said.
There are a number of reasons why cases might take too long, including the complexity of a case, the time- scale being impacted by parallel criminal investigations, and delays in obtaining expert evidence or post-mortem reports. It might be further complicated by delays in obtaining accounts from key police witnesses and subjects. That said, it is not acceptable for investigations to go on for too long, but the trajectory of timescales is certainly downwards.
The noble Lord’s amendment would introduce an additional layer of cost and bureaucracy. It would also risk creating perverse incentives for investigators to rush to meet deadlines at the expense of the quality of an investigation, particularly in those complex cases or if historic matters are at stake.
If an investigation into police wrongdoing was terminated without being concluded and that officer might have had a case to answer for gross misconduct—I can think of very recent cases which are relevant here—this would significantly undermine public confidence and potentially the course of justice. I am sure that is not the intention of noble Lords.
The amendment also risks undermining the independence of the police disciplinary system, blurring the lines between when legally qualified persons are appointed to this role and when the same person is appointed as a legally qualified chair of a misconduct hearing. These individuals would be selected from the same pool. That fundamentally changes the role of a legally qualified chair and jeopardises the independence of their position and the disciplinary system.
In conclusion, the Government have already taken steps to reduce investigation timescales and we will be monitoring the timeliness of investigations, drawing on new data collection requirements that we introduced as part of recent reforms. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support for speedy justice. Obviously, this impacts the complainant as well as the officers.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his contribution. It seems very strange standing here and talking about a former commissioner in that way, but I am in police mode at the moment, I think. He made a very important point about firearms officers who volunteer to take on this enormous responsibility and are then treated so badly by the system.
The Police Federation—I am grateful for its support of these amendments—accepts that there will be delays if a criminal investigation is involved. However, there are still significant delays even after the criminal matters have been dealt with, as I outlined in the examples I gave.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his promise to come back all guns blazing, as it were, if I bring the amendment back on Report.
It is interesting that there is a parallel with the Armed Forces again. I spoke to a former soldier who was resigning from the police service and asked him why. He said that he was leaving because, in the Armed Forces, when something goes wrong, the most senior officer involved takes responsibility and faces a court martial, while in the police service, the responsibility is pushed down to the lowest-possible level, to alleviate the responsibility of senior officers. That is an aspect of the culture of the police service; I agree with that officer’s conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, talked about public confidence. If there is no confidence in the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the police complaints system, this will be partly due to the undue delays. Complainants are beginning to think “What are they trying to cover up? Why is it taking so long?”. It is essential that these things are dealt with in a timely manner.
I thank the Minister for her support in principle, but the examples I gave were not complex cases; they were simple, but they still took years. They did not involve expert witnesses, yet there were still delays. These are recent cases from last year.
I am sorry but I do not accept the Minister’s assertion that this amendment would result in a rush to complete investigations. These completely independent people would assess whether there were justified reasons for investigations going on as long as they had. Clearly, if these investigations were not being dealt with in a timely manner, they would have something to worry about. This is about picking up those cases in which there is unnecessary and unreasonable delay. Of course, the same chair would not adjudicate over whether an investigation was going on too long and then chair the discipline investigation.
We are on to something here and I am very grateful to the Police Federation for bringing it to my attention. We may well need to discuss this further on Report, but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 8 withdrawn.

  
Clause 2: Increase in penalty for assault on emergency worker

Amendment 9

Earl Attlee: Moved by Earl Attlee
9: Clause 2, page 3, line 46, at end insert—“(3) After section 2 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 insert—2A Potting (1) A person commits an offence of potting if the person—(a) maliciously causes an emergency worker to unwillingly or unwittingly come into direct contact with any substance containing urine, excrement or ejaculate,(b) is in custody and causes or permits their own urine or excrement to be intercepted without lawful reason or excuse, or  (c) is in custody and causes or permits their own ejaculate to be intercepted without lawful reason or excuse.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a substance that looks and smells as if it contains urine or excrement is to be taken to contain such substances.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), only in exceptional circumstances may the court accept a defence of “lawful reason or excuse” in the absence of evidence of a prior direction by a clinically qualified person.(4) In each and every case where the alleged offence takes place in a custodial environment and the Crown Prosecution Service decide not to prosecute on the grounds of not being in the public interest, the Lord Chancellor must be notified within 28 days of any such decision being made.(5) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient suitable kits for collecting evidence samples are available within the Prison Service.(6) A person guilty of an offence to which this section applies is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.””

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 9 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.
From time to time, it falls on this House and its committees to debate extremely distasteful matters. This will be one of those occasions. However, there are some euphemisms that we can utilise. We can use the term “relevant substance” to mean any substance mentioned in the proposed new Section 2A(1) of the 2018 Act. If we need to be more specific, we can refer to subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) in the proposed new section. The type of assault in question is generally termed “potting”.
Let us suppose a dedicated and efficient junior official of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is walking down the high street and he or she is assaulted by an aggrieved taxpayer. Suppose the assault is achieved by inverting a bucket containing the relevant substance on his or her head, or alternatively by using what I would call the “custard pie technique”. The Committee will appreciate that the distress caused to the junior official would be off the scale. The victim would be comforted, if that was possible, by the knowledge that the police would regard it as a very serious assault. There is no doubt that the police would go to great lengths to secure the evidence and that the CPS would invariably prosecute if the police produced the necessary evidence. If such an assault occurred, the Committee would expect to see extensive national media coverage, possibly with public statements made by the Home Secretary or the relevant chief constable.
I have to tell the Committee that this type of assault is not unusual in the prison service today, but a thorough investigation and prosecution does not invariably follow. In the event of such an assault, the Committee will completely understand the overriding desire of the prison officer or other victim to immediately get under a shower and wash off every drop of the relevant substance. Unfortunately, this may interfere with the evidence trail.
There are other difficulties associated with bringing the perpetrators of such an assault to justice. First, the police have numerous and conflicting priorities; I am afraid that they are often unable or unwilling to attach much priority to an assault of this type when the victim is a prison officer or governor, and the assault occurs within the secure estate. A further difficulty is that the CPS is apparently not very energetic in prosecuting these cases. Part of the problem may be the evidence trail that I have already referred to.
I should also point out to the Committee that there is a complex criminal infrastructure in most prisons. It can be that the prisoner carrying out the assault has no grievance himself but makes the assault on behalf of others. Often, this is because the prisoner who is “invited” to do the deed has no more time that can be added to his time in custody without being charged with a new offence. He could also be put under considerable pressure by other criminals to commit the offence. The Minister will doubtless correctly tell us that there are existing relevant offences, but without a specific offence, prosecution is less likely.
Furthermore, the existing offences do not catch preparatory acts; that is to say, intercepting the relevant substance. Of course, the person who commits this offence of interception could easily and certainly be identified. My amendment proposes a new offence of potting. It makes it clear that, if the substance looks or smells like the relevant substance, it is that substance. It makes it an offence within the custodial environment for anyone to intercept their own relevant substance, under new subsection (1)(b), with a tightly defined medical exemption. The lawful reason or excuse exemption is less constrained for relevant substances falling under new subsection (1)(c) for obvious and understandable reasons. Proposed new subsection 4 requires the CPS to notify the Lord Chancellor if it is decided not to prosecute on public interest grounds. I would like to make it clear to the Committee that the intention is to make the probability of prosecution and conviction very high, in order to completely deter such assaults.
We ask prison officers, governors and others to look after some of the most mad, bad and sad members of our society. Some, as we know, are just minor offenders, while others are particularly evil, devious and dangerous. We have a retention problem within the prison service; allowing this type of assault to go unpunished must surely have a negative effect on morale and retention. We owe it to those charged with such onerous duties to protect them so far as is possible from assaults of this nature—and indeed from any other. We can discharge our duty by ensuring that there is a high probability of prosecution and conviction for these offences. I beg to move.

Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11, in the name of my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester, with her permission, as she is sadly unable to be here today. I declare her interest as Anglican bishop of prisons in England and Wales.
This amendment seeks to improve Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 by expanding the definition of “emergency worker” to include all staff working in prisons. All those who  work in prisons play a valuable role. However, currently, only officers and some healthcare staff are covered by this legislation and, as such, the risk for others working in prisons is increased, because prisoners are well aware of the more severe consequences of assaulting an officer compared with others working in prisons. Someone described this as effectively painting a target on their backs. This is an unintended consequence of the current legislation, which is unfair to many prison workers, undermines their safety and can be easily dealt with through this amendment.
The work of chaplains, educators and others who work in prisons is essential. They play a crucial role in the well-being and support of prisoners, in the work that underpins successful rehabilitation of offenders, and in maintaining a well-run and ordered prison. Prison chaplains, teachers, instructors and healthcare workers are vital vocations within the justice system. They need support and security to perform their roles well.
This amendment is supported by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance, and it has shared disturbing anecdotes from prison workers, as yet unsupported in law as emergency workers. One worker reported:
“Cutbacks in prison officers mean we are at greater risk than ever. I have been working in this environment for 10 years and have never known it so bad.”
Another noted:
“The prison is unsafe despite receiving an urgent notification last year—little has changed. We are running at significantly reduced numbers but there is no order or discipline in the jail. Staff assaults are an almost daily occurrence. One of my nursing staff was severely assaulted in the clinic room and I have a high level of staff receiving counselling due to fears around safety.”
A third said:
“I am a lone instructional officer in a textiles cutting and manufacturing workshop within an immigration removal centre. As a civilian, I don’t receive Control & Restraint training, carry a baton or wear a body-worn camera.”
Prison chaplains share in the front-line care of prisoners, providing pastoral and spiritual comfort. It is shocking that they might be seen as an easy target for physical assault. This is an account from a prison chaplain:
“I was leading some funeral prayers for an 18 year old. He was poorly and had had a hospital place to go to until a more needy child in the community got it. His Aunt Died and he requested funeral prayers. He was edgy as we moved to Chapel and I spent some time settling him before I led him through some prayers. As I was reading Ps23, I saw movement to the side. I remember asking myself ‘What happens if I am assaulted here?’. Momentarily later I was hit side on causing bruising to my face and bruising. I had some concern as I am currently on blood thinners. Staff back up was immediate, I had photographs taken and was taken out to hospital for a check-up. I then went home for the afternoon and returned into work the following day, I wanted to ‘get back on my bike and start pedalling!’. As a Priest Chaplain we speak about ministry through adversary, I can now stand alongside my uniform colleagues who are at risk every day from assault and understand better how to support them, because I have been there.”
Another said:
“As a Christian Chaplain I was assisting a visiting Imam to ensure that Friday Prayers was able to take place. Just as prayers were about to start I was asked by staff to go downstairs and speak to a prisoner who had not brought his ID card and was not therefore being allowed in. My intention was to ask his name and if his name had not already been ticked off on the list, to allow him in. When I arrived at the door the prisoner was extremely  angry. He said he did not want to speak to me but would only speak to the Imam. I explained that it was a visiting Imam who would not be able to help him and that he was busy as prayers were about to start. He said that if he was not allowed in he would go back to the wing and ‘start smashing up staff’. I looked around to ascertain the whereabouts of staff and as I turned my head to the right I felt a blow to the left hand side of my head, knocking off my glasses and causing a cut to the side of my nose. He was immediately restrained by staff and taken to the segregation unit. I was attended to by healthcare staff. I remained on duty as the visiting Imam was a friend and I wanted to ensure that all went smoothly and that he was able to get off the premises after prayers.”
This chaplain received excellent care from colleagues working in the prison but should be supported through the law, as an emergency worker.
I would add that, in the last 12 months, I have spoken to two prison chaplains in my own area; one was assaulted and the other explained the fear they now face because of the amount of lone working they find themselves doing and how often there is no one nearby if something were to occur. It cannot be right that some front-line prison workers are protected while others are not.
In conclusion, prisons that are dangerous for staff are dangerous for prisoners too and disrupt the essential task of rehabilitation. Will the Minister give assurance that the Government are committed to making prisons safer working environments for all staff?

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I have Amendment 10 in this group. According to the Times newspaper, in an article dated 10 March this year, Chris Philp MP, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office and Ministry of Justice responsible, according to the article, for sentencing, said that
“detailed research had found that the likelihood of being caught and punished was much more important in discouraging people from committing crime than length of jail sentences.”
Answering a Parliamentary Question about the deterrent effect of longer sentences, he said, again according to the Times:
“The evidence is mixed, although harsher sentencing tends to be associated with limited or no general deterrent effect. Increases in the certainty of apprehension and punishment have consistently been found to have a deterrent effect.”
I subsequently discovered that this was the Answer to a Written Question on 19 February from the Conservative Member for Rother Valley about pet theft—of which more on another day. The Bill certainly is the gift that keeps on giving.
Noble Lords around the Committee will be aware that we on these Benches have consistently said that longer prison sentences do not deter criminals and now, according to the Government, harsher sentences have limited or no deterrent effect. So why do we have Clause 2 in the Bill? Noble Lords may be surprised that, as a former police officer, I am not supportive of this measure. Something needs to be done about assaults on emergency workers, but an increase in the maximum sentence is not what is needed. What is needed is a change in attitude among the general public, in society and in the courts towards assaults on emergency workers in general and on police officers in particular. It appears to me to have become accepted by many that being  assaulted is part of the job of a police officer or an emergency worker. But no one should be expected to tolerate abuse or assault because of the work they do, whether they are a Member of Parliament or an emergency worker.
The type of assault covered by this clause is common assault. Anything that causes a significant injury, even if it is not permanent, such as a bruise, can and should result in a charge under Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is already five years. We are talking about relatively minor physical harm. Can the Minister tell the Committee how many cases of assault on an emergency worker to date have attracted the current maximum penalty of 12 months in prison—or a sentence of imprisonment at all?
The reason for my amendment, in effect for the Sentencing Council to review its guidance for the existing offence where the existing maximum penalty is 12 months’ imprisonment, is to ensure that the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service reflect the seriousness of this offence in their decision-making, rather than what we see week after week reported on social media, where assaults on emergency workers in general and police officers in particular are treated by the CPS and the courts as part and parcel of the job. That sends a message to criminals and the general public that you can assault emergency workers with impunity, because in court you will be just be given a slap on the wrist—if it even gets that far. What is the point of increasing the maximum penalty for an offence to two years when the Government themselves acknowledge that harsher sentences have little or no deterrent effect and the courts, which can currently send someone to prison for up to 12 months, rarely if ever do so?
The Government may say that in some cases severe penalties can have a deterrent effect—but an increase from one year to two years for an offence often committed in the heat of the moment during the course of a confrontation between a police officer and a member of the public is unlikely to be one of them. Far better that the Government mount a publicity campaign stating that it is completely unacceptable to attack emergency workers who put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve the public, than that they make a minor adjustment to the maximum penalty that is likely to go unnoticed by those it is targeted at, either as a deterrent or in court following conviction, unless there is a significant change in the attitude of judges, prompted by a change in the sentencing guidelines.
On Amendment 11, proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, clearly, prison officers are as vital a uniformed force as police, fire and rescue services, the ambulance service and the coastguard, and they are afforded similar protection. I quite understand how others working in prisons feel that they are more vulnerable and, as the right reverend Prelate said, they feel they have a target on their back because they are excluded. He gave the appalling example of an assault on a prison chaplain that resulted in bruising to the chaplain. But, again, I say that that offence could have been prosecuted under Section 47, where there is an  even greater penalty available than for an assault on an emergency worker. So we are not supportive of the increase.
On Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, of course, if such substances are actually thrown at a prison officer or other emergency worker, it would amount to assault and therefore it would be covered by existing legislation around assaults on emergency workers, with a similar penalty to the one the noble Earl is proposing in his amendment. So we feel that there needs to be a change in attitude towards the apparent acceptability of assaults on emergency workers, rather than simply a cosmetic increase in the maximum penalty.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I think the noble Lord and I are in agreement that the problem is that we are not prosecuting these offences, rather than the outcome in the courts. Because, for the prisoners, it may be that even another three-month penalty for my new offence would be enough to deter them—or, using the existing penalties, as the noble Lord said, it is the probability of being prosecuted that matters.

Lord Bach: My Lords, of course we want to change attitudes and that is what we must try to do, however long it takes us, but I have to say, from my experience over five years as a police and crime commissioner—I am sorry to keep on about this—this wrong seems to have increased on a fairly enormous scale. That is only anecdotal, but the truth is that many more of those who are about to be arrested seem to think that it is okay to have a go at the police in order not to get arrested. That seems to me to be very unfortunate, and it is going to take a long time before it changes. It puts the police, and obviously other emergency workers, in a nearly impossible position sometimes—and when I talk about the police, I am really referring to other emergency workers as well.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I do not want to see higher sentences for the sake of higher sentences, and I do think that their effect is often very limited, but I have to say—it seems odd, coming from these Benches, I suppose—that I have a certain sympathy with the Government here, because it seems to me that the position has to be dealt with immediately in some way, and one of the purposes of raising the maximum sentence available is to try, in the best possible way, to convince the courts that this is a more serious offence than sometimes they think it is. It is not always minor, I am afraid—sometimes it is undercharged—but it is a really serious problem that every emergency worker, and in particular every police officer, faces every time he or she makes an arrest, and I do not blame the Government for wanting to do something about it.
I am not saying it will be very successful; I think it is a much wider societal problem. But I do think it is something the Government are entitled to at least think about in this way. I do not say that with any happiness at all, but to claim that it is not a real problem is just untrue: it is a real, everyday problem.

Lord Beith: My Lords, I entirely accept that this is a real problem, but real problems require real solutions that have some chance of being effective.  I cannot imagine anyone who commits an assault on a police officer or emergency worker actually knowing what the maximum sentence is for that offence—still less that the Government are currently increasing it. That information might just get through to the newspapers for a week or two, but there is no measurable deterrent effect from something that people do not know much about anyway. Most people must realise that if they get caught assaulting an emergency worker they will get into some kind of trouble, but whatever impels these dreadful assaults is clearly not likely to be affected by what is happening here.
What happens when you increase the maximum sentence? If you achieve generally longer sentences, you have made a commitment of resources. The question has reasonably to be asked: is this the best way of spending money to try to stop emergency workers being attacked? We must therefore look at any other measures that you can reasonably take that would have that effect, if, as I contend, there is no evidence that increasing the maximum sentence will lead to any reduction in attacks on emergency workers or police officers.
This is just one of many examples, and there are others that we will perhaps debate more fully later in the Bill, where the Government rush to have something to say—lengthening the maximum sentence certainly looks like having something to say—but it does not have the effect in the real world that we all desire.

Baroness Fox of Buckley: My Lords, I am a bit too squeamish to discuss Amendment 9 but I wanted to reflect on Amendments 10 and 11 and to follow on from some of the comments just made about the deterrence factor and expanding how long people are threatened with jail for.
I thought the Bar Council raised some very useful challenges for us to consider in relation to the section of the Bill dealing with assaults on emergency workers. The Bar Council asks us to consider if increasing the maximum penalty for such assaults is necessary or commensurate or whether it will work. It notes the limited evidence. I thought when I was listening to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who I was very compellingly convinced by, that it can feel a bit like virtue signalling rather than tackling the problem.
I was particularly interested in a slightly different point from the one that has been made and was struck by what the Bar Council said in relation to, I think, these amendments: there is a danger of creating a disparity between the penalties for attacks on emergency workers and those on other workers, and indeed a disparity between attacks on emergency workers and those on members of the public. There is an offence of common assault that should be considered a serious offence whoever is on the receiving end of it. Whoever is attacked, I would want the law to deal with it.
We heard from the right reverend Prelate how, if you start saying that an attack on this particular group of workers has to have a particular length of sentence, that might make other groups of workers—in this instance, in prisons—feel as though they are being neglected or somehow are not as important. We therefore have to be nervous about differentiating between categories  of workers because that might end up being divisive, implying that front-line workers in some jobs are more important than others.
As a former teacher who has worked in the education sector—I worked with some challenging young people and was on the receiving end of some common assault, let us put it that way—I have been following closely the case of Professor Kathleen Stock, a feminist philosophy academic at Sussex University, whom the police have advised should not return to her place of work on campus because of the danger of violence from some self-styled anti-TERF activists. There have been all sorts of threats and harassment. They even have a special phone number for her to ring. There are other teachers who face this.
I raise that because when it comes to this kind of threat, that kind of potential violence and those kinds of assaults, it does not matter if you are a front-line worker. I do not know why the “emergency” bit should give you an extra penalty. I am not advocating for a special penalty for attacks on education workers. I just do not want people on the front line to feel that some are more important than others.
What will keep emergency workers safe? That is what we all want; we do not want anyone to be attacked. The description of what is happening in prisons gives us a bit of a clue. In that instance, it is the lack of staffing and resources causing the problem, not that attackers do not think they will be sufficiently penalised.
More broadly in society, and this has been hinted at, there is a crisis of authority. We have to ask a much deeper question about why people might want to punch a policeman and why people in the emergency services are treated with disrespect. To be honest, just adding on prison sentences or making that kind of point will not achieve what the Government want, even though I am sympathetic to their aims.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I will open by discussing first some of noble Lords’ contributions on their amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, spoke to his Amendment 10. The amendment is about preparing sentencing guidelines for assaulting an emergency worker, or along those lines. My experience as a sitting magistrate is that those guidelines are not available at the moment so we use the old guidelines for assaulting a police officer as the guidance. However, I reassure him that whenever I sentence people I invariably make it explicit that part of the sentence, or maybe part of the uplift, is due to the role played by the person who was assaulted. So although it may not have been expressly set out in legislation about emergency workers, if it concerns a teacher or something like that, I will say that it is a very serious matter and I have taken that into account in the sentence. Nevertheless, I understand the points that the noble Lord made.
The amendment by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who spoke on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, seeks to expand the definition of “emergency worker” to include all prison staff, and he gave some very moving examples of chaplains, educators, instructors and healthcare  workers. I think he has seen some of the same briefing that I have, which says essentially that many of those people are saying that they have never seen it so bad in terms of assaults on those people working in prisons.
As is often the case in Committee on Bills in this House, the debate went wider. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said about being cautious about having a hierarchy of people who work in public service in one way or another. Nevertheless, I also took into account what my noble friend Lord Bach said: there is a role for sending a message about the Government responding in some way, although that does not necessarily mean increasing sentences themselves; there are other ways of responding that may be more effective.
I turn to Amendment 9, which I have put my name to, and I thank the noble Earl for tabling it. As well as sitting as a magistrate in London, I am also co-chair of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group here in Parliament and I have had a lot of lobbying on this matter, as I know other noble Lords have too.
The noble Earl explained the practice of “potting” in prisons. It can be done by prisoners who are mentally ill or, as he explained, by other prisoners as part of a tactic to punish officers who are targeted by particular groups of prisoners. He explained the circumstances where it may have a relatively minimal effect on the offender if they are towards the end of their sentence.
There is a widespread perception among prison officers that they have been neglected by the Government and that the CPS and the existing discipline structures within the prisons, and indeed visiting judges, do not take the practice of potting sufficiently seriously. In fact, on various TV programmes about working in prisons, we can all see, as I have, prison officers being potted. In fact, I have a magisterial colleague whose niece is a serving prison officer and, only a few months ago, she was potted herself. Of course, this is a completely disgusting and disturbing thing to happen. I hope that it will not reduce her commitment to the job of being a prison officer, but I have to say that I do not know; it might be one of the reasons that some officers choose to resign from the service.
There are many issues facing the Prison Service, which we have debated many times: high turnover of staff, pay and conditions, inexperienced managers, a change in the retirement age—the list goes on. I suspect that the noble Earl is right to anticipate that, in his answer, the Minister will say that the practice of potting could be charged in any number of ways and may well argue that it is covered by existing legislation. But the point that the noble Earl was making is that it simply is not taken seriously enough. The addition of a separate, specifically defined piece of legislation outlining this practice, making it more difficult for the authorities to minimise, would show that the Government value prison officers. This is an opportunity, I would say, for the Government to demonstrate that they value prison officers.
I do not know what the noble Earl plans to do at further stages of this Bill. This is such an egregiously disgusting practice and it is a tactic used in prisons; this is a specific way of responding to that tactic, which is within the Government’s hands in this Bill.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: My Lords, I begin by placing on the record my apologies for not being in my place at Second Reading for personal family reasons. I also place on record my thanks to many noble Lords for their kind and supportive words and messages; I am very grateful.
Turning to the substance of the matter before the Committee today, Clause 2 of the Bill proposes an increase in the maximum penalty for the offence of common assault and battery when that offence is committed against an emergency worker. The definition —this is important—of “emergency worker” is set out in Section 3 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. The pandemic has reminded us, if we needed reminding, that the vital front-line role that our emergency workers play, and indeed always have played, is of immense importance to our society. But we have recently seen an increasing number of assaults being committed against emergency workers in the course of their duties. This will simply not be tolerated.
Last summer, we delivered on our manifesto commitment to consult on this issue. We found that the large majority of respondents supported our proposal to double the maximum penalty to two years. This will ensure that the law provides our police and other emergency workers with sufficient protection to carry out their duties and will enable the courts to pass sentences that reflect the severity with which we view these offences. This measure builds on previous legislation introduced by the Government back in 2018. We have enhanced already the protection of emergency workers where more serious assaults such as ABH and GBH are committed—I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made this point. These more serious offences obviously carry higher maximum penalties than common assault. Where such offences are committed against an emergency worker acting in the course of their duties, this is regarded as an aggravating feature of the offence, warranting a higher sentence.
Let me deal first with the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I am grateful to her for tabling the amendment, and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for acting as her spokesman this afternoon—I was going to say, “as the Aaron to her Moses”, if I may put it in those terms. The purpose of her amendment is to broaden the definition of “emergency worker” to encompass all staff in custodial institutions. The Committee will be aware that all prison officers, prisoner custody officers and those who exercise functions associated with these professions are already included in the existing definition of “emergency worker” from the 2018 legislation.
The problem is that broadening the definition of “emergency worker” can have unintended consequences. The broader definition would capture anyone employed or engaged to carry out functions in a custodial institution, which can extend to prisoners who undertake jobs within the institution. The amendment would then place this group of convicted prisoners on the same statutory footing as prison officers, constables and NHS staff. That would be unacceptable.
By means of increasing the maximum penalty for the assault of an emergency worker, we want to protect those who protect others. That is why it is right that emergency workers are on a different statutory footing. Clause 2, therefore, does not seek to amend the underlying definition of “emergency worker” that was accepted by Parliament when passing the 2018 legislation. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, given the work of the Bar Council in this area, but it is right, I suggest, that we acknowledge the special position of emergency workers, as Parliament did back in 2018.
Of course, that is not to say that any form of violence in custodial institutions is acceptable; it plainly is not. We want to make sure that our prisons are safe for all staff, as well as all prisoners. Picking up on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have a pertinent question. I am troubled by the rather lame excuse that the noble Lord offers from the Dispatch Box about the “unintended consequences”. Surely it would be very simple to put in place an exemption that barred prisoners from benefiting from that clause. I cannot understand why the noble Lord is so resistant to this particular move; there must be a workable way round it. I have been a Home Office Minister and have had lame excuses written for me—this sounds like one of those.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I am afraid that the noble Lord appears to have missed the point of principle that I made before making what he characterises as a lame excuse, but which I thought was in fact rather a good point. The point of principle is that we have a definition of “emergency worker”, which Parliament accepted back in 2018. It is a good working definition, and we shall stick with it; that is a point of principle. The point on this amendment was that it goes too far because it has those unintended consequences. The noble Lord should not lose sight of my first point by concentrating only on the second, which he regards as lame and which I regard, from a legal perspective, as quite a nice point—I do urge upon him the point of principle as well.
I was coming to the point that we value prison officers. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, laid down the gauntlet and asked that we do so from the Dispatch Box. Of course we do. Our position on this amendment has nothing to do with not valuing prison officers or the work that anybody does in prison.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked what we were doing to protect prison staff. Those who carry out corresponding functions to prison officers and prison custody officers are already included in the definition of an emergency worker. Offences against those people will be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing guidelines. That is what I wanted to say in response to that amendment.
I turn now to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which seeks to place in statute a requirement on the Sentencing Council for England and Wales to prepare and publish a sentencing  guideline for this offence. The position here—and I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said—is that the independent Sentencing Council has recently issued updated, definitive guidelines for a number of assault offences, including the offence of common assault. The guidelines came into effect on 1 July this year. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, say that he had not seen that. The position is this, and I have had it checked: what came out is that it is in the general common assault guidelines. There is not a specific guideline for assaults on emergency workers, but those general guidelines deal with assaults on emergency workers. Perhaps I can have the relevant pages or document provided to the noble Lord if he has not yet seen them.
That document therefore contains, for the first time, specific guidance for courts to use when sentencing an offender for assaulting an emergency worker. It makes it clear to the court that an uplift to the sentence should be provided. Given that, I suggest that there is no practical purpose to this amendment. Of course, the Sentencing Council operates independently of government —I should make that clear—which is important for the independence of the courts. We can, I am sure, be confident that the council will give due consideration to the need to update the relevant guideline if Clause 2 is, in due course, accepted.
Turning to the points made about the increase in the sentence, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Paddick, the short point here is that deterrence is only one aspect of sentencing. One also has to consider punishment, public protection and the seriousness of the behaviour. We do not sentence only on the basis of deterrence, and this clause is certainly not—to pick up a phrase the noble Lord, Lord Beith, used—the Government rushing to have something to say. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that we do not want to see higher sentences just for the sake of it. I welcome, if I may say respectfully, his realistic approach to this issue. We need to show that this is a really serious offence and will not be tolerated.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me a specific question that I will try to respond to. If I have not responded to all of it, I will come back to him. The information I have for how many have received a custodial sentence for assaulting an emergency worker is 1,533 in 2019 and 2,392 in 2020. There has also been an increase in the average length of sentences and we would expect that to increase further if the maximum sentence increases further. One must remember, however, that maximum sentences are for the most serious occurrence of the offence. Therefore, the fact that the maximum sentence is rarely or not used is not an indication that the maximum sentence is wrong. It might just be that there has not yet been an incidence that justifies the maximum sentence.
Finally, I turn to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Attlee to amend the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 to create a specific offence of potting, which would carry a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment on summary conviction, or two years following conviction on indictment. As we have heard, potting—for those familiar with the term only in the context of gardening—is, in this context, a rather more gruesome affair. It is usually  taken to mean the throwing of bodily fluids—we have used the euphemism “relevant substances”, but we know what we are talking about—at a person, usually police or prison officers, by prisoners or offenders while in prison or custody. That is disgusting behaviour; it simply will not and should not be tolerated.
We take the safety of prison officers very seriously. We have committed an extra £100 million to security and we have given them body-worn cameras, police-style restraints and various incapacitant sprays to allow them to do their jobs more effectively. However, the problem with this amendment is twofold. Let me first take the part of it which provides that, where the CPS decides that prosecution is not in the public interest, it has to notify the Lord Chancellor within 28 days. That proposal—I heard what the noble Earl said—is plainly designed to ensure a high probability of both prosecutions and convictions. However, there is, with respect, a point of principle here: prosecutions are independent of government. The CPS has to make its decisions independent of political pressure. A provision that the CPS has to inform the Lord Chancellor of a decision not to prosecute is concerning because it risks blurring that important divide between government and the decision to prosecute.
Turning to the obligation to ensure that sufficient suitable kit for collecting evidence is available in the Prison Service, I do not understand that at the moment there is a problem there, but I am happy to discuss the point further. We do not need, however, a separate criminal offence. All of this can be prosecuted and captured under existing offences, such as assault and battery and other offences under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 24 of which covers maliciously administering poison or noxious substances. In the 2019 case of R v Veysey, the Court of Appeal held that urine—if I may say that from the Dispatch Box—can, in these circumstances, be a noxious substance. It is important, however, that the trial court is able to look at the individual circumstances, any aggravating or mitigating factors, and then decide the appropriate sentence.
We have clear guidance in operation to ensure a consistent framework to deal with crime committed in prisons. I do not know whether my noble friend has seen the Crime in Prison Referral Agreement, published in May 2019. That makes it mandatory for any assault—except where there is little or no injury—including any instance of potting, to be referred to the police. The police will then look at the evidence and seek to charge the offender. When the matter does not go to court, it can be dealt with by an adjudication in prison, which can also add extra time in custody. In light of that, and for the reasons I hope I have explained clearly, the Government are not persuaded that this amendment is necessary. For those reasons, I urge noble Lords who tabled these respective amendments not to press them.

Bishop of Durham: I am sorry—I thought very carefully about whether I should intervene. I was genuinely so taken aback by the Minister’s reference to prisoners being included that I nearly leapt up immediately. The question was then asked, but I have tried to replay it in my head. I absolutely understand that the Minister  meant no offence but, out of context, I fear how it might be understood by those workers, such as chaplains, tutors and so on. By, in a sense, lumping them together with prisoners who have been employed, it could easily be misheard outside this House. I know that was not the Minister’s intention, but I ask him to put on the record that it was not what he meant.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to do that. As I am sure everybody recognises, that was not the point I was making. I appreciate that it was regarded as lame by some people, but the point that I sought to make was that the distinction and purpose of the amendment was to expand the definition from prison officers to other people working in prison. My point was that from the way in which it is drafted—and I appreciate that it could be redrafted—it could and would be read so broadly as to include prisoners who were doing jobs in prison. It was certainly not what I was saying to place prisoners doing jobs in prison with chaplains and others who are working in prison. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving me the opportunity to make that clear, if it was not already.

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood: I seek one matter of clarification, although I should not need to. Is there no way, apart from raising the maximum sentence by legislation, by which government could bring to the attention of the prosecuting authorities, sentencing courts and so forth the aggravating features that cover all these amendments? There are the emergency workers in the first place, and the nauseating offence of potting, which I confess not to have heard of before, and assaults on prison officers. There are those who find themselves, in the ordinary course of their employment, exposed in these highly vulnerable circumstances to miscreance of an obvious character. Is there no governmental input to the Sentencing Council? Can the Government not influence those sorts of bodies to isolate the fact that these are manifestly aggravating circumstances, which should go to raise not only the likely sanction being imposed but the likelihood of prosecution?

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: As the noble and learned Lord knows far better than I do, one has to distinguish between aggravating and mitigating factors and the likelihood of prosecution. With regard to the Sentencing Council, I am confident that it already has that point on board. The question before the Committee is that of maximum sentence rather than aggravating or mitigating factors. I have also said—and, I hope, explained—that there is clear guidance in place to make sure that, when these offences are committed, they are dealt with either through the courts or through prison adjudication.

Baroness Chapman of Darlington: I just want to take the Minister back to the comments made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham on the definition of prisoners as workers. I cannot think of any other legislation where a prisoner enjoys the same rights as a worker. There are many rights that workers enjoy in this country, but none of them that I am aware of apply to prisoners. There must be a way  around this, perhaps by a government amendment or some sort of redrafting, that would allow the suggestion made to be incorporated.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar: I think I made it clear earlier that I was making two points in response to this amendment. The point that we are focused on at the moment is whether we could have more—and I say this respectfully—felicitous drafting than the drafting of the amendment that we currently have. I have accepted in principle that one could, and I made that clear in my previous answer and my answer to the right reverend Prelate. However, I do not want us to lose sight of my first response, on the point of principle: we have a definition in the 2018 Act of “emergency worker”, and that was regarded in 2018 as suitable and fit for purpose. It treated that definition as a separate status and a distinct group, and the Government’s position is that definition was good in 2018 and remains so now.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. On Amendment 11 from the right reverend Prelate, I am aware of the problem that he describes, but I did not make my new offence cover other Prison Service staff. I deliberately excluded probation officers just for reasons of simplicity, but if I managed to make my potting amendment find favour with the House, I would have to decide who was to be protected by it.
I am slightly disappointed by my noble friend’s response, because I thought that I was offering him the best thing since sliced bread, but he turned me down. The problem for the Minister running the Prison Service is that he cannot direct the police force to investigate these issues and, as he carefully explained to the Committee, he cannot direct the Crown Prosecution Service to pay greater attention to these offences either. My noble friend has no tools to protect prison officers—so I suspect that the Prison Officers’ Association will be a little bit disappointed with his approach.
I think we identified the underlying issue, which is the probability of being prosecuted for these sorts of these offences, and we need to have another look at that. I shall, of course, withdraw my amendment, subject to the usual caveats and discussions with the Opposition Front Bench.
Amendment 9 withdrawn.
Amendments 10 and 11 not moved.
Clause 2 agreed.
House resumed.

Net Zero Strategy and Heat and Buildings Strategy
 - Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 19 October.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on the net zero strategy and the heat and buildings strategy. The Statement is all about future generations as well, because we know that we must act now on  climate change. The activities of our economies, communities and societies are changing our environment. If we do not take action now, we will continue to see the worst effects of climate change.
We have already travelled a significant way down the path to net zero. Between 1990 and 2019, we grew our economy by 78% and cut our emissions by 44%, decarbonising faster than any other G7 country. Since 2010, the UK has quadrupled its renewable electricity generation and reduced carbon emissions in the power generation sector by some 70%. In the past year alone, we have published the Prime Minister’s Ten-Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, the energy White Paper, the North Sea Transition Deal, the industrial decarbonisation strategy, the transport decarbonisation plan, the hydrogen strategy and more. Earlier this month, we unveiled a landmark commitment to decarbonise the UK’s electricity system by 2035. But there is still a substantial length of road to travel. We must continue to take decisive action if we are to meet our net-zero goal, so today I am pleased to announce two major government initiatives: the net zero strategy and the heat and buildings strategy. This is not just an environmental transition, it represents an important economic change, echoing even the explosion in industry and exports in the first Industrial Revolution more than 250 years ago.
We will fully embrace this new, green industrial revolution, helping the UK to level up as we build back better and get to the front of the global race to go green. We need to capitalise on it to ensure that British industries and workers benefit. I can therefore announce that the strategy will support up to 440,000 jobs across sectors and across all parts of the UK in 2030. There will be more specialists in low-carbon fuels in Northern Ireland and low-carbon hydrogen in Sheffield, electric vehicle battery production in the north-east of England, engineers in Wales, green finance in London and offshore wind technicians in Scotland.
The strategy will harness the power of the private sector, giving businesses and industry the certainty they need to invest and grow in the UK and make the UK home to new, ambitious projects. The policies and spending brought forward in the strategy, along with regulations, will leverage up to £90 billion of private investment by 2030, levelling up our former industrial heartlands. The strategy also clearly highlights the steps that the Government are taking to work with industry to bring down the costs of key technologies, from electric vehicles to heat pumps—just as we did with offshore wind, in which we are now the world leader. Those steps will give the UK a competitive edge and get us to the head of the race.
We have spoken often in this place of late about the importance of protecting consumers, and consumers are indeed at the heart of the strategy. Making green changes such as boosting the energy efficiency of our homes will help to cut the cost of bills for consumers across the UK. Switching to cleaner sources of energy will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and, again, bring down costs down the line. This plan is also our best route to overcoming current challenges. The current price spikes in gas show the need to reduce our reliance on volatile imported fossil fuels rapidly. Although there is a role for gas as a transition fuel, moving away from imports quickly is in the best interests of bill  payers. With our ambitious set of policies, the strategy sets out how we meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets and our nationally determined contribution. It puts us on the path for the sixth carbon budget and ultimately on course for net zero by 2050.
We are now setting up the industrial decarbonisation and hydrogen revenue support scheme to fund these business models and enable the first commercial-scale deployment of low-carbon hydrogen production and industrial carbon capture. We have also announced the HyNet and East Coast clusters as track 1 economic hubs for green jobs.
We have previously announced that we will end the sale of all new non zero-emission road vehicles from 2040, and the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The strategy explains that we will also introduce a zero-emission vehicle mandate that will deliver on our 2030 commitment to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans.
To increase the size of our carbon sinks, we will treble the rate at which we are planting new trees in England by the end of the current Parliament. We will be a global leader in developing and deploying the green technologies of the future. The strategy announces a £1.5 billion fund to support net-zero innovation projects, which provides finance for low-carbon technologies across the areas of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan.
We have also published our heat and buildings strategy, which sets out our plans to significantly cut carbon emissions from the UK’s 30 million homes and workplaces in a simple way that remains affordable and fair for British households. We will gradually move away from fossil fuel heating and improve the energy performance of our buildings through measures such as grants of up to £5,000 towards the costs of heat pumps, a further £800 million for the social housing decarbonisation fund to upgrade social housing, and a further £950 million for a home upgrade grant scheme to improve and decarbonise low-income homes off the gas grid.
The year 2021 is a vital year for action on climate change. In just two weeks’ time, the UK Government will host the crucial United Nations COP 26 conference in Glasgow. As the Prime Minister has said, it needs to be a “turning point for humanity”, the point at which we pull together—and pull our socks up—to keep 1.5 degrees in reach. Hosting COP 26 will also give the UK a huge opportunity to showcase our world-leading climate credentials and set an example to other countries to raise their own ambitions. The net zero strategy will take centre stage in our display, setting out our vision for a UK that is cleaner, greener, and more innovative.
We are ready for Glasgow, and I commend this Statement to the House.”

Lord Grantchester: I thank the Minister for bringing yesterday’s Statement on the net-zero strategy and the heat and buildings strategy to your Lordships’ House. As he knows, the clock is ticking, and it is less than two weeks to go before COP 26 in Glasgow. I congratulate the Government on getting these two vital documents out—two coming along together at once—to fulfil long outstanding commitments to show  the spread of attention needed across the economy. These are two vital aspects to the challenge to decarbonise all areas of our national life, our homes and buildings, and to how the Treasury values net zero in its command of the nation’s finances.
COP 26 is making the Government face up to the size of the challenge, and we support them in the focus that that brings on climate change action. We want the conference to be successful. It comes at a very opportune time in world affairs, and it comes now. Can the Minister update the House on the amount of commitments that the Government have secured to their goal of raising £100 billion annually for climate investments internationally?
There are many aspects of the Statement that are rightly welcomed—that the Government recognise that they must take action now, and that these two major initiatives represent vital change in the economy and environment. People are thinking that the Conservative Government are taking Britain back to the 1970s, with energy shortages and high prices. At this last moment before COP 26, there is a growing sense that the Government are finding the climate emergency too big to ignore and yet too hard to grasp. As the Minister is presenting both documents, can he confirm that the Treasury is now fully committed to helping industry and the public through this present crisis? There is a sense that the funding commitments nowhere near match the size of the challenge. There has been almost a decade since David Cameron shredded vital confidence on action when he slashed the renewable energy incentives that so many wished to participate in to do their bit.
Emissions from buildings are higher today than they were in 2015. There are 19 million homes rated below EPC band C that desperately need insulation and upgrading. However, having said that, I welcome the element on the incentivisation for heat pumps, especially recognising those off the grid, most notably in rural areas. It does rather leave consumers at the mercy of electricity prices, and the Statement makes mention of a further £950 million for a home upgrade grant scheme to decarbonise low-income homes off the gas grid. Can the Minister expand on this and say how many households this will benefit?
I wonder whether the support for heat pumps is actually a step back in support. To the majority on the grid, heat pumps are generally seven times the cost of conventional gas boilers. The £5,000 grant appears less than the help that is currently provided through the RHI. Granted that the RHI is being scrapped in April, and that it pays back over a longer timeframe, is the Minister convinced that the Government are doing enough to defray the huge up-front costs for consumers? The Government say that they would like to see conventional gas boilers no longer included in new house builds from 2035. Can the Minister show more commitment? Why cannot the Government bring in a ban on all new conventional boilers being available after at least 2035? This would parallel the challenges and ban on the production of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030.
The hydrogen sector would certainly welcome the commitment towards hydrogen-ready boilers, that all quotes for any replacement or new boiler must include one for hydrogen-ready boilers. While they are still  more expensive than conventional boilers, they certainly do not carry the huge price disadvantage of heat pumps. The Statement does not add any additional funding to the £240 million in the hydrogen strategy, which will not be made available until 2023. How do the Government plan to kick-start green hydrogen production at home when, to date, all orders for green hydrogen technology have been made overseas?
Hydrogen would certainly benefit the transport sector in the long term as well. In the meantime, I welcome the promotion of electric vehicles. Can the Minister outline the Government’s plan to help make electric cars more affordable for all consumers? I also welcome the emphasis on investments across the regions, most notably the HyNet cluster in the north-west, and stress to the Minister the need to engage effectively with metro mayors and local authorities, who are all eager to promote the net-zero agenda.
The Government used to insist that they were technology-neutral in their policies. They then moved to the scattergun approach of the Prime Minister’s Ten Point Plan without setting out a comprehensive plan across the economy. As they now fill in the gaps left, are the Government moving in this Statement from a scattergun policy towards picking winners and losers? This Statement, welcome as it is, resembles a pick ’n’ mix of support—so much has been omitted. I will leave it to other speakers to raise those many areas. However, the Government must go over to the touchline and check the monitor of reality. The Statement says that the Government will “gradually” move away from fossil fuels. “Gradually” is too slow. Action is needed now, and the Government must immediately cease the contradiction of providing support for fossil fuels both in the UK and overseas. The Government have said—the Statement repeats it—that the conference needs to be “a turning point for humanity.” What has been taking the Government so long? The earth is on the edge across the globe, and the Government must act as if they really believe it.

Lord Oates: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Statement on these important and extensive documents, and I hope that the Government will provide time at an early opportunity when the House can have a full debate on the full detail that is included in the hundreds of pages that have been published.
I know that in the past when I have responded to publications, the Minister has sometimes been offended that I have not been as effusive in my praise as he thought was merited. As I know him to be a sensitive soul, I will try to start off as positively as I can. There is merit in the fact that, after so long, we actually have the documents at last. There is merit in the fact that the Government remain committed to our climate change goals, and we should give thanks that climate has not become the political dividing line that it has in other countries. I also welcome the decision to introduce a zero-emissions vehicle mandate and a new target for greening all electricity generation. However, I am afraid that, after that, I am running out of things to credit the Minister and the Government with.
The Treasury tells us in the Net Zero Review:
“The transition has implications for current and future taxpayers”—
but it does not tell us what they are. It provides no indication of how the black hole arising from declining fuel duty revenues will be replaced. It says only that
“the government may need to consider changes to existing taxes and new sources of revenue”.
Likewise, in addressing the crucial issue of carbon leakage, which is critical to the viability of our industries as we decarbonise, the Treasury blandly tells us:
“Further work is required”
and that
“a case for conducting a formal call for evidence may emerge.”
There is nothing in the document about using the financial regulatory system to curb the financing of new and dangerous fossil fuel exploration and exploitation, and there is nothing about net-zero requirements on all planning decisions. The complacency is breath-taking. The Treasury clearly thinks that the climate emergency is a distant threat rather than the clear and present danger that looms before all of us.
The heat and buildings strategy is even more devastatingly unambitious. The Government propose a grant scheme that they estimate will deliver 90,000 heat pumps per year, and they convert what was assumed to be a mandate to end new conventional boiler installations into an aspiration. Every year, something in the order of 1.2 million new gas boilers are installed. The Government’s target for heat pumps will reduce that number to just over 1.1 million new gas boilers installed every year. Bearing in mind that they have a lifespan of about 15 to 20 years, it is immediately apparent that we will be building in a long legacy of fossil fuel heating year after year. If that was not bad enough, 90,000 units will not provide the scale to drive down costs and incentivise installers to retrain in heat pump installation, so the Government’s hopes of falling prices driving demand will remain a fantasy.
However, worse than all that, there is no credible plan to upgrade the energy efficiency of our existing homes, which should be the very first priority. If we are going to upgrade the millions of homes the Government say we need to, we have to rapidly scale up our capacity so that we have the skills base to deliver at least 1 million home upgrades a year. We are nowhere near that yet and there is no plan here to achieve that. Installing heat pumps in homes that are leaking energy makes no sense at all, but the Government offer no route to tackling these problems.
What about the money? I would ask what happened to the £9.2 billion promised for energy efficiency in the Conservative Party manifesto, had it not become abundantly clear by now that a promise in that document now seems the best indicator of what will not happen rather than what will. However, it is clear that, after the green homes grant scheme ended, we are now being given a promise of less money over a longer period of time, and it seems to achieve less than we were promised.
So, while I welcome the continuing ambitions of the Government, I remind the Minister that, some months back, he acknowledged in response to questions that the Government needed not only ambitious 2050 targets but a credible short-term action plan to get there. Regrettably, this is not it.

Lord Callanan: I thank the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Oates, for their comments, even though the screen indicated the noble Lord, Lord Oates, had been renamed Lord Fox for most of his contribution. I am pleased to say he has been reincarnated in a different guise.
I was pleased to have the initial support of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. It deteriorated slightly from there, but never mind. On funding commitments, since the 10-point plan was announced, and including the commitments yesterday, that makes a total of £26 billion worth of public investment. More importantly, that has leveraged £90 billion of private sector investment into this sector as well. I can confirm the figure of £950 million for the home upgrade grant, which will particularly benefit the homes of low-income families in off-gas areas.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Grantchester, mentioned the boiler upgrade scheme, which I can confirm will have £450 million over three years: £5,000 for air-sourced heat pumps, £6,000 for ground-sourced heat pumps. What most noble Lords missed, and a number of commentators as well, is that this is not the totality of our support for heat pumps. We are also installing a considerable number under the social housing decarbonisation fund, the public sector decarbonisation scheme and, of course, from 2025 when the new housebuilding strategy comes into force, there will be, pretty much, no alternative option for new builds than to install low carbon heating, so that will see a further acceleration. We are currently installing about 30,000 heat pumps a year: roughly 10,000 as a result of subsidy schemes and 20,000 in new builds. This is a massive ramping up.
If the green homes grant taught us anything, it is that we cannot just inject a large amount of funds and expect the industry to change overnight. There is a huge amount of transformational change taking place. To the credit of many private sector companies, they are coming forward with ambitious plans themselves. If I may mention but one: I visited Octopus yesterday morning. It has a fantastic new training centre in Slough and is proposing to employ and retrain hundreds, if not thousands, of currently qualified gas engineers to enable them to install heat pumps in the new revolution. The chief executive told me that by April next year, including this new grant system, they hope to be offering heat pumps for costs roughly comparable to existing gas boilers. I know that many other private sector companies have similar plans.
Clearly, heat pumps are expensive at the moment, but this is all about government funding, pump-priming the market, helping the private sector to innovate and bring the costs down. I am sure noble Lords will accept, that it is a strategy that was extremely successful in the offshore wind market. Costs for offshore wind were initially very expensive and are now comparable to, or possibly even cheaper—we will find out in the contracts for difference round—than existing fossil fuels.
I was surprised to hear that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats now seem to be in favour of banning boilers. Our position is that it is certainly our aim and ambition that by 2035 we will be able to move away from installing gas boilers. Crucially, before  we do that, we need to make sure there are viable alternatives in place. We certainly hope—given the figures that I gave for heat pumps—that by 2030 there would be comparable offers on the market, and alternatives in place. Maybe the hydrogen offer will be comparable by then. We will certainly consult on the possibility of making all boilers hydrogen-compatible, to enable that transition to take place, but as of yet the jury is very much out on whether there will be the ability, at reasonable cost, to produce the enormous quantities of hydrogen that would be required if we were to get anywhere close to it replacing natural gas. I am on the record as saying it is more likely that we will end up using it for industrial processes—trains, HGVs et cetera—rather than the large-scale replacement of gas for domestic heating. Although already, of course, there are trials taking place of hydrogen being injected into the gas main. Injecting up to 20%, it is still possible to work with existing appliances.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also raised the issue of electric vehicles, and I can tell him that a further £620 million of funding for zero emission vehicle grants and EV infrastructure was announced. We allocated a further £350 million of the up to £1 billion automotive transformation fund, to support the electrification of UK vehicles and, importantly, their supply chain, as well, of course, as a £3 billion integrated bus network, and £2 billion to enable towns and cities to be cycled or walked.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, ended by talking about a pick-and-mix approach. I fundamentally disagree —this is a comprehensive strategy, looking at every individual sector of the economy in turn and outlining a comprehensive strategy of how they all need to do their bit to contribute towards the legally binding net-zero target.
I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, started on a positive note before things descended. He asked me for details of the funding under the heat and building strategy. We have talked about the boiler upgrade scheme, and the social housing decarbonisation fund that is bubbling away in the background. They are extremely successful schemes, and I recommend that noble Lords visit some of the excellent schemes we are already installing. That is a further £950 million and £800 million respectively over 2022-23 and 2024-25. A further £1.4 billion over 2022-23 to 2024-25 is being invested in the public sector decarbonisation scheme, with the aim of reducing emissions from public sector buildings. There is £338 million for the heat network transformation programme and £270 million for the green heat network fund, sector regulation and new heat network zones by 2025.
I understand why noble Lords will always call on us to do more, but I think this does represent a comprehensive strategy tackling all parts of the economy and shows how they can all do their bit to contribute towards our decarbonisation goals. It was even recognised by the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin. This is an extremely ambitious programme and is world leading.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, reports suggest that a companion document to the net-zero strategy entitled Net Zero: Principles for Successful  Behaviour Change Initiatives was published and then withdrawn a few hours later. The report suggests that this government document raised concerns over the expansion of airports contained in government policy and tax exemptions for the aviation sector. It said that the Government needed to do more to make behavioural changes easy and affordable, and align commercial interests with net-zero outcomes. It proposed carbon taxes, a financial levy on food with a high-emission footprint, and forcing the markets to be more transparent to enable consumers to choose more sustainable options. Will the Minister confirm if these reports are true? Will he tell me why this report was withdrawn and what its status is now?

Lord Callanan: I believe there were some documents that were published in error, but they have been withdrawn. Fundamentally, we do not believe in telling people what to eat or how to live their lives. Our focus is on helping people, incentivising them to make green choices, and to make those choices easier and cheaper. As we transition to net zero, we will be tech- led using British technology and innovation, just as we did in the last innovation revolution. I appreciate that the Greens want to lecture people and instruct them; I believe that carrots are much better than sticks.

Lord Liddle: My Lords, I welcome this Statement. I have not had the opportunity, as yet, to read all the documents. I fear the criticism that I made in the debate on levelling up on Thursday is relevant. There is a clarity of destination about the Government’s policies, but no viable plan to get there. The thing that stuck in my mind is that when we are looking at the necessary move away from gas central heating, the incentives being offered for heat pumps—the £450 million over three years—is clearly inadequate, in comparison with the huge scale of the challenge.
I have always understood the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to be a Conservative who believes in the use of market mechanisms—they are what Conservatives normally support. Can he tell me the Government’s estimate of the rise in gas prices that would be necessary to persuade the public, under market mechanisms, to install heat pumps?

Lord Callanan: The noble Lord will be pleased to know that I do believe in market mechanisms. His question is impossible to answer, and let me explain why. Heat pumps are three to four times more thermodynamically efficient than existing gas boilers. At the moment, because of the costs of various policies on the production of electricity to successfully decarbonised the electricity sector, there is an imbalance in pricing. The Treasury and the Government have accepted that we need to do something about rebalancing gas and electricity prices. Now is clearly not the time to do this, when we are experiencing record gas prices. In the longer term, and bearing in mind that this is a 15-year strategy, we need to change the balance of these costs. We are committed to do so. There are other market mechanisms of which I could speak in favour. We will consult on a market mechanism for gas boiler manufacturers to have a certain proportion of their sales be in heat pumps. I repeat what I have  said before: the boiler upgrade scheme is not the only support mechanism we offer for installing heat pumps.

Bishop of Durham: The Minister and I live in the same region, where masses of new building is going up. I have had only a quick read of the document —we have not had time for anything other than that—and there is a lot about retrofitting in it. Given that we have all the technology and knowledge now, can the Minister explain why new builds are not being built to a net-zero target from this year or perhaps next? Everything is in place to be able to do this. We are delaying too long.

Lord Callanan: The decision was made by what was then the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that the future homes standard would kick in in 2025. There is a long process of consultation to go through with industry to ensure that the standard is applicable, that the supply chain is there, and so on. The right reverend Prelate will be pleased to know that we are changing what is called Part L of the building regulations next year. This will also produce substantial carbon savings in advance of the future homes standard coming in in 2025.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering a question I asked a few weeks ago, to which he did not then really reply. I asked when the owners and landlords of buildings and housing will know whether hydrogen is to be the basis for what is currently the gas network. In one place, the document says that it will be “in” 2026, and in another it says “by” 2026. Either way, building owners have five years during which they will not know whether or not their heating systems can be transferred to hydrogen. The Minister is tonight deeply sceptical about whether we would have enough hydrogen, given its other uses, as earmarked in this document, and the need for an increased production in hydrogen for transport and industry. Can the Minister go further and indicate whether any buildings or housing will be convertible from natural gas to hydrogen, or whether some buildings in areas of industrial hydrogen use could be transferred to it? There are three scenarios, varying from nil hydrogen for home heating to it being used for something like a third of home heating by 2050. Will this mix now take place? Do we have to wait till 2026 for any sort of answer to this question?

Lord Callanan: I would like to give the noble Lord a direct answer: it is genuinely impossible to say, at the moment. Let me explain why. It is clear that hydrogen will play a major role in our economy. It will probably contribute to some heating, but I have given my view based on current technology. It is perfectly possible to use hydrogen for heating and gas boilers; the technology exists now—I have seen it. Two houses have been built our area—for the benefit of the right reverend Prelate—of Gateshead—which are entirely hydrogen-fuelled. They have hydrogen boilers, hydrogen hobs and hydrogen gas fires. They work perfectly well — I have cooked an egg on a hydrogen hob.
The question is where we get the hydrogen from. There are two ways of producing it: either from natural gas through carbon capture storage for blue hydrogen,  or through electrolysis to produce green hydrogen. You then have to ask yourself the question: does it make sense to use green electricity to generate hydrogen to heat homes, or is it more sensible just to use electricity in the first place to heat the home through a heat pump? That is a question about thermodynamics and conversion and there will be different solutions in different places.
We can say with certainty that the future of home heating will almost certainly be taken over by three technologies: electrification through heat pumps; a greater use of heat networks, for which we have allocated funding; and a certain percentage from hydrogen. The reason we have announced our hydrogen strategy, are funding lots of research programmes and are consulting on a market mechanism to generate large amounts of hydrogen is to try to kick-start the market—to get it going and to bring in private sector investment and ingenuity. This will help to generate large amounts of hydrogen—cheaply, we hope. But we do not yet know to what extent the technology will develop, how much we will be able to produce at reasonable cost, and whether it will be suitable for use in home heating or whether it will be more sensible to use it in industrial processes. We have a multi-pronged strategy. As soon as we have more information, I will be sure to update the noble Lord.

Baroness Randerson: The Government have announced that new-build housing will have charging points for electric vehicles. But the Minister will know that many houses and much other accommodation do not have access to driveways or sufficient space for such points. People will rely increasingly on electric vehicle charging points in public places. Their rollout has been very slow, and those that exist are in a very unreliable condition. More than two years ago, legislation came to this House and was passed which gave the Government considerable powers to improve their availability by making public charging points easier to use and easier to pay for and to ensure that they were better maintained. That legislation has not been implemented. Why not?

Lord Callanan: I believe that it has been implemented. As I said earlier, we have allocated £620 million for vehicle grants and for further funding for local EV infrastructure. This is being rolled out across the whole country. Many local authorities are installing EV charging points in lamp posts, in publicly accessible areas. Grants are available for the installation of electric charge points in the home. Many are being rolled out in service stations and petrol stations. The infrastructure is being rolled out. I understand that the noble Baroness is impatient for it to be done faster, but it is happening.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, given that I cannot see anyone else rising, perhaps I may return to a point raised by both Front-Bench spokespeople about the ending of the sale of gas boilers by 2035. The Government’s document seems to say that this is a confirmed ambition. Can the Minister explain what a “confirmed ambition” means? Given that the Climate Change Committee recommends  that these should be ended for residential properties by 2033 and for commercial properties as early as 2030, and given that the International Energy Agency says that there should be a global international ban by 2025, why is this so late?

Lord Callanan: I understood that I had explained that earlier in my answer to the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Oates, but I am happy to do it again for the benefit of the noble Baroness. It is an aim—an ambition—that by 2035 we will be able to move away from the installation of gas boilers, but we want to make sure that cheap, easily available and affordable alternatives which cost no more to buy or run than a gas boiler are in place. We are fairly certain that the technology will be available. That is why we are supporting so many of our insulation schemes and the heat pumps that we spoke about earlier, but we want to make sure that the technology is available. This also chimes in with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—hydrogen will play a role, but we do not know to what extent at this stage. I understand the impatience of noble Lords, but this is a strategy to be rolled out over many years.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle: My Lords, given that there are 19 million homes in the country marked on the bottom rung for energy efficiency—D or below—and that the Heat and Buildings Strategy stresses in its introduction the need for a fabric-first approach, can the Minister tell me why there are no firm proposals to replace the scrapped green homes grant or funding for improving the fabric of our homes?

Lord Callanan: The noble Baroness has obviously not been paying attention to what I have said, but let me repeat the figures yet again. She might want to go and look at some of the fantastically successful delivery we were doing for low-income families under the local authority delivery scheme. We spent hundreds of millions of pounds on that; we have already rolled out the first phase of the social housing decarbonisation fund, and we are investing £950 million and £800 million respectively over the next two years. I referred earlier to the home upgrade grants. All these are paying for home insulation measures for the most vulnerable in society and for people on low incomes. I am sorry if the Greens are not aware of that or do not support it, but we are investing these very large sums of money to upgrade the fabric of people’s homes and install low-carbon heating systems in them. I have been out and viewed many of these schemes.

Lord Grantchester: If I may also take advantage of being able to jump up again on the Minister, I would mention one aspect of the spread of areas to be covered with new developments: nuclear. There was no mention of nuclear in the Statement. Are any updates to the small modular reactors policy being brought forward by the Government?

Lord Callanan: I am happy to tell the noble Lord that there was mention of nuclear in the Statement, and we announced £120 million for a nuclear innovations fund. I can also tell him that we will have more to say on our nuclear ambitions shortly.

Bishop of Durham: It is obviously the evening to get a second go. Yesterday, the Transition Pathway Initiative launched the Global Climate Transition Centre, which will be a key part of the COP 26 financial infrastructure, to assess 10,000 companies on their alignment with the net-zero pathway and support accountability and action on this very important issue. Understandably, that is not in the paperwork, because it was announced yesterday. Is the Minister aware of the Transition Pathway Initiative—which has been around for a while now—and the Global Climate Transition Centre, and what actions will the Government take to support these initiatives?

Lord Callanan: Yes is the answer to the right reverend Prelate’s question. They are excellent initiatives, and they are indicative of some of the leadership of many of our leading companies and how they are committing to net zero. Many of them are going to be displaying at COP, and it is great to see some of the biggest businesses in our land also helping us on the pathway to net zero.

COVID-19 Pandemic in Latin America
 - Question for Short Debate

Baroness Coussins: My Lords, Latin America accounts for 8.2% of global population but has experienced a disproportionate 20% of Covid infections and a third of global deaths. The response to Covid has varied enormously within Latin America. In Brazil, the laissez-faire attitude of the Government left everything to a devolved health system, and they actively refused to take any central responsibility or leadership, with President Bolsonaro dismissing Covid as just “a little flu”. This has resulted in Brazil suffering the worst rates of death and infection in the whole of Latin America.
By contrast, Uruguay saw the most effective response by miles, ramping up the test, trace and track systems, avoiding lockdowns and school closures, and achieving some of the lowest infection and death figures in the world—although, during 2021, the beta variant from Brazil has now increased infection rates among young people in particular. I am aware that funding from the UK embassy in Montevideo has helped to fund genomic surveillance and public health monitoring. Is that funding still in place, and could it be replicated in other countries of the region? In El Salvador, the borders were closed quickly, and quarantine was enforced by the police and the military. Containment centres were also set up quickly but proved to be ineffective at infection control because shared accommodation became a vector for spreading the disease. In Panama, it was hoped that transmission rates would be reduced by allowing people out to pharmacies and supermarkets by sex: women one day and men the next. This has  been monitored by Google tracking people’s phones. There are no reliable data on whether it was effective, although the infection rate appears to have declined.
But the Covid factor that is characteristic across the region is the way in which the pandemic has exacerbated existing inequalities. Corruption over the acquisition of ventilators has been notable in Bolivia. In Colombia, there was a 103% increase in domestic violence between March and December 2020. Some 21% of Latin America’s urban population live in slums, informal settlements or precarious housing, where overcrowding and the lack of services are some of the factors that help to spread disease. You cannot be two metres away from someone if your house is only two metres square and for multiple generations.
In Colombia and elsewhere there was already very limited access to healthcare and basic services such as clean drinking water and soap in poor and rural areas, making simple Covid measures such as handwashing very difficult, if not impossible. Similarly, in Peru, the pandemic has exposed chronic weaknesses in the public health system, especially in rural areas such as the Amazon region. The poorest in the population found it hardest to comply with lockdown and social distancing because they rely on daily wages in the informal economy and could not afford not to work, even if they risked infection or knew they were infected. These pressures fall most heavily on women, indigenous peoples, Afro-Colombians and peasant farmers. The number of Colombians living in extreme poverty grew by 3.5 million in 2020 alone, and the UN added Colombia to its list of so-called hunger hotspots.
In Peru, too, a further 3.3 million people now live in poverty as a direct result of Covid. Around 2 million lost their jobs, the economy shrank by 11%, and average wages for those with jobs fell by a quarter. Has any audit been done on how the cuts in our overseas development aid spending will affect programmes we have been funding in Latin America to improve health systems and inequalities? In light of the devastating impact of Covid, will the Government consider restoring such funding?
Inequalities have also surfaced in relation to vaccines. Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Mexico and Peru all participated in clinical trials or storage in exchange for access to the products. Vaccines have been procured through agreements with pharmaceutical firms and through the COVAX scheme. But factors such as purchasing power, population size, delivery infrastructure and political will mean it will take years for vaccination at population level to be achieved—in Paraguay, for example, it will not be until 2024. Is the level of vaccines signed up for under COVAX—which I believe was to get 2 billion doses to the region by the end of 2021—actually on target?
I have two other vaccine-related questions. First, what is the Government’s position on the protection by patents of the intellectual property of the vaccines? There is a WTO waiver for public health emergencies, which was activated for antiretroviral drugs during the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis. Could this be helpful for getting Covid vaccines to Latin America, as well as better technology transfer and support for domestic producers?
Secondly, there is the question of which vaccines are being used. Brazil has AstraZeneca but has also been using Russian and Chinese-produced vaccines which are not approved by the WHO. The main supply of Peru and other countries has been the Chinese Sinopharm. Has any assessment has been made of the restrictions on travel for those with unapproved vaccinations or unrecognised vaccine programmes in relation to the UK’s business relationship with some of our major trading partners in Latin America? Would it be in our own enlightened self-interest to do more to share approved vaccines so that trade, and indeed cultural and educational travel and exchanges, will not be impeded?
Finally, but no less importantly, I want to touch on the impact of Covid on security, crime and human rights in the region. The cumulative impact of Covid has led to widespread civil disruption and riots in some parts of the region. In Colombia in April this year, mass social protests met with horrendous police brutality. Armed groups took advantage of lockdown to terrorise and control communities, including the killing of 177 human rights defenders in 2020 alone. I know that the Government take the UK’s role as the penholder for Colombia at the Security Council seriously, and I would like to know what the Minister thinks can be done to make sure that the peace accord in Colombia will not be destroyed altogether by Covid and its ramifications.
Equally disturbing is the spike in murders and violence generally, including sexual violence, in Mexico. Organised crime appears to have been helped by Covid restrictions. Although lockdown put fewer people on the streets, reducing the demand for drugs and the capacity to smuggle drugs to the US, this led to drug cartels competing more aggressively for business, including by securing allegiance from isolated communities by offering food and medical supplies to establish control in return for their allegiance.
Does the Minister agree that it is in the UK’s economic, diplomatic and security interests for us to be much more proactive? Latin America got just two brief paragraphs in the recent integrated review. Surely the impact of Covid illustrates that a greater level of attention and engagement is needed.

Baroness Blower: My Lords, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on securing this important debate on Latin America, which is of great interest to many across the House for a variety of reasons. As she said, Latin America has just 8.2% of the world’s population, but by February 2021 had recorded more than 650,000 deaths—more than one-quarter of the world total. I think we can be sure that the attitude of and policies pursued by Jair Bolsonaro have been responsible for the huge number of deaths in Brazil. In general, the pandemic has highlighted the inadequacy of public health systems and severe inequality in Latin American society—an aspect of the Covid pandemic in evidence, in terms of equality, in the UK as well, alas. One of the outcomes among Latin American nations may be that higher social spending on health and so on will be called for, which would be no bad thing.
Colombia reacted reasonably quickly in the initial stages of the pandemic, but prolonged lockdown eventually led to a falling away of compliance as people needed to work, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said. In fact, many people have now lost gainful employment. Against the background of a high level of human rights abuses and serious opposition to proposed tax reforms, which would further entrench inequality, many Colombians have faced considerable harm at the hands of state forces in addition to the harm they faced from the pandemic. Armed groups have clearly taken advantage of the lockdown to wreak havoc in communities, with the UN observing huge increases in massacres, which were already all too common in Colombia.
It takes an enormous amount of courage to be a human rights defender, or even an active trade unionist, particularly a teacher trade unionist, in Colombia. The UN mission has called the number of deaths of human rights defenders an epidemic of violence, with 177 individuals killed in 2020. With what we hope will be the gradual subsiding of the pandemic, the focus must return to high-profile condemnation of the violence of the Colombian police and paramilitaries. Will the Minister ensure that Her Majesty’s Government will continue to call for full implementation of the peace process?
Repeated incidents of state violence call into question Colombia’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law, on which the UK-Andean trade deal is based. The Colombian unions and the TUC have called for the suspension of the deal to put pressure on the Colombian Government to address the violation of human rights and to implement in full the 2016 peace agreement so that post-Covid peace in Colombia can be a real prospect.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, as the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Hannan of Kingsclere, have withdrawn, I now call the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, as I, like others this evening, have an affinity with Latin America.
The situation is dire, which is supported by a depressing collection of facts and numbers. The pandemic has had a devastating social impact. Poverty—and extreme poverty, as has been mentioned—has dramatically increased, with inequality having grown throughout the region. The only question I can muster is: what is we can we do to help?
While international trade contracted globally in 2020, it contracted more severely in Latin America. The only light at the end of the tunnel is that there has been a more considerable drop in imports than exports, which has reduced the region’s trade deficit. However, the prospects for recovery are not good. Companies are recording significant losses as commodity prices fall. Generally, exports have fallen by 10% and imports by 13%. Unemployment has risen and businesses have been closed. Public accounts have deteriorated. The pandemic has caused the closure of a staggering 2.7 million Latin American companies, equating to 19% of all companies in Latin America.
The differences between the countries are high. Peru, Argentina, Ecuador, Panama, El Salvador, Mexico and Colombia have been the most affected countries, with small businesses and low-skilled workers struggling the hardest. It would be inappropriate not to record that a staggering 600,000 Brazilians, including a disproportionate number of indigenous citizens, have perished. Venezuela has felt the effects of a break in its relationship with Cuba, with doctors emigrating. Women and the youth are among the most affected.
The majority of countries have established instruments of direct help to households, such as the emergency family income in Argentina, the Covid-19 voucher in Chile, the solidarity income in Colombia, the proteger voucher in Costa Rica and the emergency voucher in Brazil. Some countries have been able to take advantage of the boost in their exports of medical and agricultural products. Guatemala and Honduras have benefited from the sales of masks and Costa Rica from those of medical equipment, mainly destined for the United States market.
The all-important remittances from Latin American workers outside the region fell by 19.3% in 2020, according to the World Bank. These incomes are particularly important in Central America. The worsening environment for migrants during the pandemic means that their basic needs are unmet and their social and economic capabilities not realised. In short, Covid-19 has illustrated the urgent need to support the impoverished with aid from overseas.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her perseverance in getting a time slot for this debate, I also support all she said about the prevalence, consequences and challenges posed by the pandemic throughout Latin America. She underlined in particular the social and security aspects. I agree not only with her, but with the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that the overall picture is dire and depressing.
In my three minutes, I would like to refer in particular to the three countries with which I am engaged as a trade envoy, namely Panama, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. I was appointed just before lockdown. Inevitably, Covid and the restrictions of lockdown have affected any attempts to embark on promotional trade activities in both directions. It is only very recently that Costa Rica has come off the red list of countries which we cannot visit and from which we cannot receive visitors. It came off the list with two other Central American countries, Honduras and Guatemala. The three countries are very preoccupied with the issue of the red list.
Tourism, of course, is vital to the economies of these three countries and to wider Latin America. In particular, eco-tourism is vital to Costa Rica. As the Minister well knows, Costa Rica is recognised as the greenest economy of the region, and of the whole of Latin America, so it is of the utmost importance to facilitate travel as soon as possible, not only for the Costa Rican economy but to support travel operators in this country, many of which are small and medium-sized businesses specialising in areas such as eco-tourism.
The latest figures I have from Costa Rica show that 70% of the population have had one dose of the vaccine and 40% have had two doses. The figures vary slightly—those I received from the Library are slightly different. However, those are quite impressive figures and perhaps account for the fact that Costa Rica was removed from the red list. I should also mention that AstraZeneca opened its new headquarters for the whole region in Costa Rica last year—a very important link.
The fact that Costa Rica is off the red list leaves me with Panama and the Dominican Republic. These countries also need to be able to open up to tourism and trade. We had a Zoom meeting with parliamentarians from Panama this afternoon and were told that 80% of the population have been double-jabbed. There have been recent discussions and information flows at a high level, which, I trust, will lead to a reassessment of its position.
I am sorry about the timing, but since two people have dropped out, I thought I might have an extra minute or so. The Dominican Republic is puzzled to be left on our red list when tourists from the United States seem to have no problem other than the need for a double vaccination certificate and vice versa. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure us of a speedy reassessment of the situation affecting Latin America, in particular the countries I have mentioned.

Lord Loomba: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for securing this important debate. As we consider the devastating consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic in Latin America, it is important to bear in mind that, due to deeply ingrained cultural attitudes, some are better placed to cope than others.
Gender discrimination affects women and girls and, as in most other parts of the world, widows in particular face additional hurdles. Rural widows who find themselves left alone to fend for their families are often not permitted to take over livelihoods due to the highly gendered nature of farm work and agricultural supply chains. In Colombia, for example, the arrangements for allocating the property of an intestate husband do not in practice allow for the widow maintaining control of the family farm or business—that is, providing for their own economic autonomy.
There are examples in parts of Latin America of disinheritance, whereby widows are prevented by male relatives from inheriting property to which they are legally entitled. Widows’ circumstances put them at high risk of poverty and additional acute direct threats to their well-being.
As regards any support we are able to provide, whether in vaccine distribution or other overseas development aid, can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will take these underlying inequalities into account to make sure that support is targeted first at the most vulnerable?

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and echo all that she has said this evening. She gave an  excellent speech and I congratulate her on getting the time available to speak on this important subject. There is all too little focus on the huge impact Covid has had on South America and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, on the dire situation it has created, not least among women and the youth, who have been very badly affected because of the inequalities that have grown in those societies.
I talked to somebody who worked for a good while with Goni Sánchez de Lozada, when he was President of Bolivia, on social and economic policies and development programmes in his country.
I have to be brief this evening, although I note that the Clock has not started yet. I want to pick up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said. She highlighted that the pandemic highlights public health systems and that funding should concentrate on public health systems. I just want very briefly, in a minute, to state that I hope that when it comes to recovery programmes, the Government will prioritise public health support in Latin America. That extends beyond many of the points that the noble Baroness wisely raised and I hope were well heard by the Government.
Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I believe that sport, recreation and active lifestyles can help very much in recovery programmes. They can go to the heart of good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality—which is critical in any recovery programme—decent work opportunities, growth and reducing the inequalities which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, rightly spoke about.
It was interesting that, in the build-up to the Olympic Games in Tokyo, the IOC, through the UN, encouraged all member states to include sport and physical activity in their recovery programmes from Covid-19; to integrate sport and physical activity into national strategies for sustainable development, taking note of the contributions sport, physical activity and an active lifestyle make to health; and to promote safe sport as a contributor to the health and well-being of individuals and communities.
That is the message I want to leave the House with in this debate. I urge the Minister to incorporate those policies and aspirations into the additional programmes that we now need to put in place to help recovery in South America, which is so vitally needed.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords, to reassure the Government Whip, I will not seek to take advantage of the flexibility on timings this evening. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins—I consider her my noble friend—for securing this debate and introducing it so well. She has a very consistent and strong interest in this region. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, indicated, this is an area which is debated far too infrequently in this House.
The world saw a differing approach to a global pandemic in that region, with politics over health, open boundaries and borders and minimal economic assistance, even when this was fiscally possible. I watched President Bolsonaro’s speech at UNGA with an element of horror, and I note the legal challenges that he now faces in his own country.
Information today from Our World in Data shows that his approach has seen 604,000 people die in Brazil, with deaths likely to be underreported. In Mexico, there have been 285,000 deaths; in Peru, there have been 200,000. Peru has had 6,000 deaths per million people of its population, compared with 752 in Canada. Perhaps the most startling figure I read was that, while the UK has seen a horrific 11% of excess deaths during the pandemic, Mexico has had 40%, Ecuador 49% and Peru an astonishing 93%.
The vaccination rollout has also been patchy. Data from today interestingly shows a full vaccination rate for Uruguay and Chile—higher than in the UK—but Brazil has only half of its population vaccinated and Peru 42.4%. The impact on that country has been enormous. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper—whom I also consider a noble friend—and I visited there together and have both made many calls for greater UK interest in that country since the visit.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, who had hoped to speak this evening, was in touch with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and myself. We all share a concern over the ongoing economic impact. At the end of last year, an estimated 231 million people in Latin America were living in poverty, the worst level for 15 years. Data from a World Bank report published on 8 June this year forecast how countries would return to pre-pandemic levels, if at all, by 2022. It suggested that advanced economies would be 0.1% smaller, but medium-income countries would be 4.1% smaller.
So the need for UK involvement at this time of crisis and the opportunity for investment and trade into the future are obvious. Can the Minister therefore explain why UK ODA support for Peru has fallen from £3.7 million in 2019-20 to just £1.1 million in the year going forward—slashed by two-thirds? It was even more alarming to read on 10 October in the Financial Times an anonymous briefing on the new Foreign Secretary’s priorities which said:
“Latin America is one region that is expected to fall down her list of priorities, according to senior British diplomats.”
Can the Minister confirm that this anonymous briefing was not correct, that the region will not fall down the priority list for the new Foreign Secretary, and that we will honour two centuries of very close relationships and ensure that this region, which is facing a huge economic crisis, will now be a UK priority?

Lord Collins of Highbury: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for initiating this debate. We are looking at a tale of two worlds here. In the first week of August, 85 million Covid vaccines had been administered in the United Kingdom. In Paraguay, the situation could not have been more different. The President of Paraguay addressed the nation amidst frustration that only 4% had been vaccinated. He told his people in simple terms, “We bet on COVAX mechanisms and COVAX did not work”. I hope the Minister will say something about that.
Two months on, the figure in Paraguay has risen from 4% to 26%. A night-time curfew remains in place and those who have received vaccinations are crediting China for Sinovac and Russia for Sputnik V, as the noble Baroness said.
Latin America has been especially hard-hit by Covid-19. It has 8% of the world’s population but over 16% of global cases in the top six countries alone and, except for Chile, the highest number of deaths. Reasons include poor health infrastructure, the inability of workers in the informal economy to self-isolate and the lack of decisive, co-ordinated government action.
The ILO estimated that, by the end of 2020, employment across the region had fallen from 57% to 52%. It also illustrated how women and young people had been adversely affected, describing the results as
“a time bomb that could affect social and political stability”.
Here I highlight the point made by my noble friend Lady Blower on the impact on the peace process, particularly in Colombia. Will the Minister tell us a bit more about how we are influencing the situation there, to ensure that the peace process is kept on track?
I hope the Minister will also address the issue of the global vaccination effort and what we are doing to ensure that we donate surplus doses, as well as develop a co-ordinated investment programme for new facilities.
What is the Minister’s strategy to support these countries in their recovery, including through international development and aid, which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, highlighted, and in addition to our trade policy? On trade policy, will the Minister address the fact that, as my noble friend mentioned, the UK’s trade agreement with Colombia did not mention human rights at all and was criticised by trade unionists both there and here? I hope he can reassure us on that and on future trade relationships.
The fundamental question is: what is the United Kingdom doing to ensure that a multilateral system is in place to ensure that, when the next global crisis comes, countries work together?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for tabling this important debate and for her continued interest in the region. She made a very compelling speech. I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions.
This is a timely debate. While some countries are, happily, starting to see a return to a more normal life, Latin America is the region hardest hit by the pandemic. The effect has been devastating. While home to just under one-tenth of the world’s population, Latin America accounts for nearly one-third of all reported Covid-19 deaths and one-fifth of confirmed cases. Covid-19 has increased poverty, plunged the region into recession and set back economic growth by a decade in some countries. That, in turn, impacts the region’s health and education systems and, worryingly, it also increases reticence about the climate change commitments that much of the world is signing up to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, focused particularly on the process of recovery. The UK is playing its part to help the region recover. In answer to her question, we are championing access to vaccines through COVAX and encouraging scientific exchange  in areas such as genome sequencing. We are mobilising climate finance at COP 26 and pursuing trade agreements so that our shared future can flourish.
Latin America is an important partner for the UK’s global ambitions. From climate change and nature, economics and trade, democracy and human rights, we work with the region on countless priorities set out in the integrated review. With many countries aligned with UK values, three members of the G20 and Mexico, currently a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council—Brazil will join in January—we have strong strategic allies right across Latin America.
The Foreign Secretary visited Mexico in the first week of her new role. She held discussions to strengthen our trading relationship, deepen our economic partnership and tackle climate change together, in support of our shared values.
I have recently returned from a trip to Peru and Colombia, where I saw for myself the devastating impact of Covid in the region. The pandemic has plunged Latin America into an economic recession. Regional GDP fell last year by 7% and predicted growth is below what we would expect from emerging economies. In two decades, before the start of the pandemic, the number of people living in poverty in the region had fallen by nearly half, but Covid has driven a significant reversal of that progress. By the end of last year, 78 million people were estimated to be living in extreme poverty in the countries of Latin America—an increase of 8 million people since the pandemic began.
Where inequalities existed before, the pandemic has cut the deepest. An increase in unemployment in the region has hit the most vulnerable the hardest, including women, young workers and migrants. It has worsened the plight of many of the nearly 6 million refugees and migrants who have fled the Maduro regime in Venezuela. The majority have sought safe haven in neighbouring countries where, notwithstanding the welcome that they have been given, many go hungry. Mandatory school closures have lasted longer than in any other region of the world. Around 100 million students in Latin America have been affected. Some, especially the most vulnerable, may never make up this loss in education. The World Bank estimates that this could cost the region $1.7 trillion in lost future income.
Many countries were ill-prepared for virtual education, and a lack of access to the internet for many, especially those in rural areas, widened the gap even more between those from the poorest households and the most fortunate. Health systems are being pushed to their limits. In Mexico and Colombia, the recent third wave put pressure on hospitals that were already exhausted from the last 18 months. In Peru, which as we have heard has suffered the worst cumulative per capita death rate globally, the pandemic has pushed the healthcare system to breaking point.
The only way that the world is going to bring this pandemic under control is through widespread immunisation, using all available safe and effective vaccines, and the UK is playing its part. We are at the forefront of the international response to Covid-19, through our commitments to COVAX, Gavi and the World Health Organization. The UK’s early support  of the AstraZeneca vaccine has been instrumental, and that vaccine is now produced locally in Mexico, Argentina and Brazil. The three countries are expected to produce around 250 million doses for the region this year.
Two-thirds of the population of Latin America have now received their first dose of the vaccine, up from just a fifth two months ago. In some countries the effects of the vaccine are beginning to bring cases down, and the overall picture in the region is finally improving. I was delighted that a fortnight ago we were able to move most Latin and Caribbean countries off our coronavirus list. However, some countries remain vulnerable to further waves of Covid-19, and those with low vaccination rates are particularly vulnerable.
In response to a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, all Latin American countries that are no longer on the red list, apart from Brazil and Chile, are awaiting verification of their vaccine certification. Until international standards are agreed globally, we will review each country’s certificate to ensure that it meets our minimum data requirements. She also asked about accelerating patents, as in the case of the AIDS retrovirals. I am afraid that I cannot give her an answer. The question is best directed to the Department of Health, and I will convey it to the department and will respond as soon as I can.
This is one of the reasons why we will continue to share our learning from the UK rollout with partners in the region and, most importantly, work together to control new variants. In Brazil, for example, we are doing this with a new variant assessment platform, working in partnership with the Brazilian Government to ensure that UK expertise helps to boost genomic sequencing capability in the country. We hope to work with more countries in the region to support this work and strengthen sequencing capability, so that we all have a better understanding of the variants as they arise.
The recent changes to the red list demonstrate that the UK is taking a scientific, country-by-country approach to these decisions. I recognise the real personal and economic impact for many people living in red list countries—a point made well by my noble friend Lady Hooper—who want to travel, who depend on the tourism industry for their livelihoods, who are businesspeople, students and more. The decision to keep countries on the red list, or to move them off it, is one that affects us far more widely: not just in our trade and prosperity partnerships but in our ability to deliver an in-person and inclusive COP 26 next month. We want to work alongside important partners, many of them in Latin America—Brazil, Mexico and Colombia—while also ensuring the safety and security of all participants.
As the scientific picture changes, we will continue to keep the list under regular review, but our priority must be to protect the health of the UK public. We will do that by continuing to take full account of scientific evidence, while balancing the advantages and risks of reopening our borders.
In the meantime, we are working with partners in the Latin American region to help them recover and rebuild. The UK is not only supporting vaccine supply but has been working with countries such as Brazil  and Mexico to strengthen their health systems through the UK’s Better Health programme. I saw for myself in Peru how UK companies’ expertise is supporting the country to rebuild schools, hospitals and river defences after the devastating effects of flooding caused by El Niño four years ago.
Even through the pandemic, the UK has been working with countries across the region to help them to become more resilient and adapt to these extreme weather events. Through the UK PACT Green Recovery Challenge Fund, for example, the UK has funded projects in Brazil, Peru and Argentina, supporting greening financial systems and nature-based solutions. That includes deforestation-free cattle ranching in Peru, promoting green finance for sustainable development in Argentina and building climate risk assessment into the credit operations of Brazilian development banks.

Lord Purvis of Tweed: My Lords—

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: I hope I was about to answer the noble Lord’s point about our support for Peru—a point that he made well. In 2020—last year—the UK signed a second Government-to-Government agreement with Peru to support the delivery of what we estimate will be a £1.6 billion infrastructure programme to rebuild schools and hospitals in the northern regions affected by El Niño-related flooding and landslides in 2017. UK businesses are already providing technical assistance while transferring the required knowledge to Peruvian experts so they can develop similar projects in future. This is an example—I do not pretend to be an expert but I did witness much of this—of the UK using its skills and relatively small sums of finance to leverage far greater support for that country. If the noble Lord does not mind, I will come to a broader point about future support for Peru in just a few moments, and I will combine that with an answer to the noble Baroness as well.
Ahead of COP next month, we have especially encouraged ambitious climate commitments. Latin America suffers the severe weather effects of climate change just as surely as its rainforests hold so many of the solutions. The region must therefore make its voice heard at COP 26 in support of ambitious climate targets.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who mentioned Costa Rica. It may not have been, in which case I apologise for not having made a note of who made that comment. Whoever it was, I strongly agree with them. I apologise; it was my noble friend Lady Hooper. She is absolutely right: Costa Rica provides an example for the world. It has managed to incorporate concern for and a focus on the environment with economic growth. It managed to double its canopy in just over a generation and has grown its economy at the same time. It has gone from pretty low in the league table to being pretty high in the region, and I do not think that is a coincidence.
Colombia, which I recently visited, is also showing extraordinary leadership on both climate change and the environment, not only in addressing, halting and reversing forest loss in the Amazon but in combining those efforts with attempts to strengthen the peace process that began just a few years ago. Again, I saw examples—

Viscount Waverley: The Minister spoke about the need to approve a certificate from Colombia. Is he able to say whether the UK does that in isolation from others around the world, or is it that we are part and parcel of a global approach in approving, for example, the certificate specifically from Colombia?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: I thank the noble Viscount for his question. I hope I am not wrong in saying that the UK has now recognised the vaccine certificates for Colombia; that has happened. Colombia remains on the red list, but this means that when it comes off that list, it ought to be a relatively smooth transition. I hope I will not have to correct the record on that, but I do not think I will.
I was amazed by some of the projects that are happening in Colombia, which combine efforts to raise living standards and reinforce the peace process by involving those people who are very much involved in conflict in this global endeavour to restore and protect nature, and which are doing so in an extraordinarily successful way. I really hope we will be able to step up our efforts in that region and beyond in support of a series of truly world-leading initiatives.
Increasing trade in the region is also essential to overcome the unprecedented economic challenges caused by the pandemic. Opening up markets, unlocking business opportunities and sharing British business expertise will benefit both the region and of course the UK. The UK has negotiated continuity trade agreements in the region with Peru, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and the countries of Central America.
In Mexico, we will soon be starting negotiations on a new ambitious free trade agreement to support jobs, opportunities and prosperity right across the UK in industries that will shape the future of the global economy and secure better access for British goods and services. Our ambition to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is also important for UK interests in the region.
The UK is acutely aware of the devastating impacts that the pandemic has had on the lives of many individuals and the economies of countries across Latin America. It has widened inequalities and pushed back—

Lord Purvis of Tweed: I know the Minister is running out of time, but he did say he was going to address this, so I would be happy if he will write to me with the forward ODA plans. However, I would be very happy if he would say, on the record, at the Dispatch Box, that the unattributed briefing to the Financial Times that Latin America is now lower down on the Foreign Secretary’s priorities is wrong. If he can say that, I would be very happy.

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The rule is that we do not respond to leaks of that sort—actually, I do not know the leak he is referring to—but I can tell him that it is a priority of mine as a Minister in the Foreign Office and someone with a particular concern for climate change and the environment that we ramp up our support for those initiatives that I just described, not just in Colombia but beyond. I can only say that I sincerely hope that the briefing is wrong—I believe it is wrong and I think it would be wrong, in fact, were that  to be the case. It was a point I was going to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in terms of our involvement and our offer for Colombia, Peru and the wider Amazon region.
I will briefly address a couple of points. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, that we are doing what we can to integrate our diplomacy and our development programmes to deliver a much bigger and better impact. I make my final point to the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. Of course, we are appalled by the reports of human rights violations and the deaths of environmental defenders in Colombia and elsewhere.

Lord Collins of Highbury: And trade unionists.

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: And trade unionists, of course. While these are the result of criminality within that country—a legacy, perhaps, of some of the difficulties that are beginning to subside, but nevertheless have really wracked Colombia for some time—these are not the consequences of malignant action by government. I raised this issue when I spoke to President Duque a week or so ago and it was very clear to me that he and his Government are doing what they can to get to grips with the issues that the noble Baroness raised so well. Although it is not entirely clear how we can help, certainly the offer from the UK is on the table to provide what support we can to enable the Government to get to grips with the problem, which is clearly tragic on so many levels. My colleagues and I raise these issues on a regular basis, but I believe that by supporting some of the initiatives that I hinted at earlier, albeit briefly, we have an opportunity in the UK to provide very meaningful support to the Government of Colombia in strengthening and extending and making that peace process endure.
On that note, I thank noble Lords for their contributions—

Baroness Coussins: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he undertake to write to me with answers to the few questions I asked that he has not been able to cover in his reply?

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park: I do apologise: I thought I had left this debate with a clean sheet, but I clearly have not, so I undertake to scan the record tomorrow and to respond to any questions from the noble Baroness that remain unanswered. I pay tribute to her for her speech, for initiating this debate and for her work in the region.

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride: My Lords, that concludes the Question for Short Debate business.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
 - Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

Amendment 12

Lord Paddick: Moved by Lord Paddick
12: Before Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—“Meaning of special constablesIn all legislation in force applying to England and Wales (including legislation enacted after the coming into force of this section)—  (a) the term “members of police forces” shall be deemed to include special constables, and(b) the term “constable” shall be deemed to include a special constable.”Member’s explanatory statementThe aim of this amendment is to ensure that special constables are considered to be members of the police service, as they are in Scotland.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, Clause 3 enables special constables to be represented by the Police Federation, which is an important and welcome acknowledgment of the role played by specials in police forces—but it does not go far enough. I have been surprised at the lack of knowledge among those I have discussed the amendment with surrounding the role of special constables, who are sworn servants of the Crown with all the powers and responsibilities of a regular police officer. The only difference is that special constables are unpaid volunteers whose only recompense is to be paid expenses. I have also been surprised to learn how widely special constables are now used across a range of policing duties.
When I was a serving police officer, specials were generally treated quite badly by regular officers, who referred to them as “hobby bobbies”. It was almost seen as a punishment for a regular officer to be paired with a special constable on patrol—a liability rather than an asset. Such attitudes were unfair and, in most cases, unjustified. As the devastating cuts to policing continued at the end of the coalition Government, special constables came to be increasingly relied on to perform an extensive range of duties, including being trained in public order to be used in the front line on potentially violent demonstrations. Special constables carry warrant cards, handcuffs and CS spray, can exercise force and make arrests, unlike police community support officers, who are unable to do any of those things. Their uniforms have evolved over time so that today they are barely distinguishable from a regular police officer.
To all intents and purposes, and as far as the law and the public are concerned, special constables are in every way the same as regular police officers, except they are unpaid volunteers. That equivalence has been recognised in Scotland, where they are considered to be members of the police force, but it is not the case in England and Wales. While I welcome the recognition that this Bill proposes to give special constables in allowing them to be represented by the Police Federation, I am at a loss to understand why they are not also to be considered members of police forces to which they belong in England and Wales, as they are in Scotland.
Special constables have a vital and increasingly important role to play. In many places, the visible policing presence on our streets has all but disappeared; specials could help to fill that gap. The nature of policing is changing, with increasingly complex and technical crime being committed, such as online fraud. While police forces cannot compete with tech giants in terms of salaries for those technically qualified and experienced, there are opportunities for those with technical expertise to devote some of their spare time to serving their fellow citizens by becoming special constables dedicated to cybercrime, for example.
If I recall correctly, the Labour Party would seek to recruit significant numbers of special constables, were it to be in government—but that requires more than a statement of intent. Being a special constable has to be an attractive proposition to potential recruits, and recognising them as full members of police forces would send a clear message as to how important and valued they are. Can the Minister explain to the Committee why special constables cannot be members of police forces in England and Wales when they are in Scotland? I beg to move.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, this amendment, proposed by my noble friend Lord Paddick, is one that I wholeheartedly support. Many years ago, when I was a magistrate, it was one of my happiest duties to swear in the new special constables. It was fascinating to hear their reasons for wanting to serve their communities voluntarily and to learn about their day jobs. Whatever motivated them, whatever their background, they shared the same driving commitment to help to keep us safe. They put themselves in as much danger as a full-time officer, and they do it voluntarily.
For many years, as my noble friend Lord Paddick, has said, full-time officers derided them. Fortunately, they began to see their worth and special constables are now, almost, fully integrated into the workforce and finally treated properly. I am delighted that my noble friend has brought forward this amendment and I support it totally.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, I am very happy to discuss Amendment 12, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It is really interesting and certainly gives us cause to think about the issues he has raised about special constables being members of police forces in England and Wales, as they are in Scotland. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response as to why that is not appropriate, or whether the legal difference between England and Wales and Scotland with respect to specials is an important difference and there is some logical reason for it. It is certainly something for this Committee to think about. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for bringing this amendment forward.
We also very much support the provisions in Clause 3, which allow special constables to join the Police Federation. This is a long overdue change, so the Government are to be congratulated on bringing that forward.
It is really important for us to put on record—given that our proceedings are read by many outside and watched by others—what will be the Committee’s unanimous view of the importance of specials and the work they do. All, or many, of us will have been out with our local police forces on the beat. I have at times been out with the specials. It is important to remember that, when a special turns up at an incident in a uniform, with the full powers of the police constable, the people to whom he or she is going do not ask them whether they are a special or whether, because they are special, they do not somehow put themselves in danger in the same way that a full-time police officer would. They are just grateful that a police officer—a uniform—has turned up to support them.
It is really important for us to state in this Committee debate that we support the specials and value the work that they do across communities up and down the country. It is also worth reiterating the evidence given to the Bill Committee in the Commons by John Apter, who said that special constables
“stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues. They have exactly the same powers and they carry exactly the same risks.”
In that short phrase, John Apter has completely summed up our view of the work that they do. Alongside that, Chief Superintendent Paul Griffiths, president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, said that special constables
“epitomise the relationship between the public and the police”.— [Official Report, Commons, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill Committee, 18/5/21; col. 26.]
It is important, in this short debate on the amendment, to put that on the record. I know it will be the unanimous view of the Committee, but I am also interested in the noble Baroness’s response—sorry, the Minister is the noble Lord; I will get it right. I have been in the Commons for a long time and it takes a little while to get used to—I am nearly there.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raises an important issue on which we need some clarification, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Lord Berkeley of Knighton: My Lords, I want to amplify one point made by both previous speakers. I am sure that the Minister would agree that what we want to do in the police force—all parts of the police force—is to encourage recruitment. The feeling that one has standing encourages that enormously. I would just like to make this point: we want to encourage recruitment, and therefore if police special constables feel that they are part of the police force, they are more likely to join and stay.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for explaining his amendment. Before I get on to dealing with this amendment, I want to say that I was very moved by the noble Lord’s earlier comments. In the interests of full disclosure, I should declare that I was an inspector in the Royal Hong Kong Police. That is where I started out; I can confirm that one never forgets the smell of a mortuary.
Amendment 12 effectively seeks to dispense with the need for Clause 3 by ensuring that, for all purposes, special constables are treated in law as members of a police force. Our professional and dedicated special constables increasingly carry out a range of specialised and front-line roles in their mission to keep us and our communities safe, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, noted. He also made some very relevant points about the technical skills that they can bring. They often face the same risks as regular officers while on duty; they deserve the same protection and support as regular officers where appropriate. That is why, through the Bill, we are enabling special constables to become members of the Police Federation, should they wish to do so.
Having been subject to long-standing separate regulation in England and Wales, the distinct nature of special constables is recognised in law with clearly defined benefits that result directly from this separate  status. In contrast, legislation in Scotland has long included special constables as “members of police forces” and has been drafted to take this into account. It would not be appropriate for special constables to have access to the same conditions of service, or indeed face the same restrictions, that legislation confers on regular officers. Including special constables in the existing definition of “members of police forces” would have that effect. Legislation on the pay and pensions of “members of police forces”, for example, is not relevant to special constables, who are unpaid volunteers, choosing to give up their free time to help strengthen our police forces. As warranted officers, special constables in England and Wales hold the office of constable and are therefore already included in the term “constable”. This means that, where legislation confers powers on a constable, they will also be exercisable by a special constable.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned how we value special constables, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I will digress briefly to set out what the Home Office is doing to recognise and support the special constabulary. The Home Office has raised  the profile and status of the annual Lord Ferrers Awards, which recognise the outstanding contribution of volunteers in policing. We have consulted on proposals to extend the eligibility of the Queen’s Police Medal to special constables, along with proposals to lower the service threshold for bars to the Special Constabulary Long Service Medal from 10 to five years. Those proposals could support the retention of highly committed volunteers who may, for example, be incentivised by an award that recognises more realistically the length of service volunteers are able to provide and their ongoing commitment to public service. I hope that this also answers something of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about recruitment.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to John Apter, chair of the Police Federation. I note that he started out as a special constable, which I suppose, by implication, suggests that that is a route into becoming a regular police officer.
For those reasons, we consider that this amendment is not necessary and could cause confusion to the status of special constables, which the law recognises as distinct from regular officers. Further, this amendment could have unwelcome, unintended consequences, for example by applying pay provisions to volunteers. I hope that, in light of my explanation and assurance, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond for her support and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his inquisitiveness and his recognition of the value of specials. I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to the Dispatch Box. I am not sure whether this was his first outing, but it was a very, very good one. As he will find out, we work collaboratively in this House and it is good to work with such a wonderful Home Office spokesman—if that is not too over-the-top.
However, I did not actually hear—or if I did, I did not understand—why special constables are included as members of police forces in Scotland, and how all  the objections the Minister raised, in terms of why they could not be members in England and Wales, have been got around in Scotland. As this is the Minister’s first outing, I would not press him to give me an answer now if he would prefer to write. But something tells me he may have the answer in his hands, in which case I shall allow him to respond.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I will try. The noble Lord is asking why specials are treated as members of the police force in Scotland but not in England and Wales. Special constables in England and Wales have been subject to long-standing separate regulation for members of police forces, and their distinct nature is recognised in law, with clearly defined benefits that result from this separate status. By contrast, legislation in Scotland has long included special constables as members of police forces, and it has been drafted to take that into account. I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Lord’s question.

Lord Paddick: It was a good try, but it quite clearly does not answer the question at all. Specials in Scotland have always been considered to be members of police forces; they are not paid, but if that happened in England and Wales, they would have to be paid like regular officers. I would like, if possible, for the noble Lord to write to me with a fuller explanation, rather than just stating what the facts are; an explanation of why the facts are as they are would be extremely helpful. But at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 12 withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed.

  
Clause 4: Meaning of dangerous driving: constables etc

Amendment 13

Baroness Randerson: Moved by Baroness Randerson
13: Clause 4, page 5, line 24, after “police” insert “pursuit”Member’s explanatory statementThis would specify that the new standards only apply to “police pursuit purposes” rather than all “police purposes”.

Baroness Randerson: My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce this group of amendments, and of those, Amendments 13, 15, 16 and 18 are in my name. They are of course probing amendments at this stage.
The Government are seeking to change the standards by which police driving is to be judged. I should explain to noble Lords that I have some background on this issue, because for 18 years I was a JP, and over those years I dealt with a number of cases that involved police pursuit. Controversial cases where police pursuit leads to traffic accidents of course occur regularly.
I have my own personal experience of this. More than a decade ago, I was involved in one such incident. One evening, I was driving along a long, straight stretch of road in Cardiff—a two-lane road, with a mix of residential and commercial properties, that had  intermittent central barriers. I suddenly became aware of cars coming towards me at considerable speed, well above the 30 miles per hour limit. It turned out to be a car driven by a very young man, with a passenger, pursued by two police cars. The problem was that they were on my side of the road, and I was on a part of the road with a central barrier. There was literally nowhere for me to go. There was a head-on crash, my car was a write-off, and there was a three-car pile-up because the car being pursued turned over and one of the police cars impacted it.
The seriousness of the crash was indicated by the fact that the road was closed for the night. We had three additional police cars on the scene, two ambulances, a fire engine and a police helicopter. I spent the night in A&E, but it could easily have been very much worse, because the passengers in the other cars suffered only minor injuries too.
Why were the police taking the risk of this pursuit? There were a number of pedestrians around—the crash happened in front of a pub. The official explanation was that the car was stolen, and I was told that the young men were suspected of at least one burglary—but that was a historical suspicion. However, until the pursuit, there was clearly no risk to life and no immediate danger of violence. It has always been clear to me that that pursuit was unlikely to have been justified.
My Amendments 13 and 16 are designed to probe how the Government envisage the new standards being applied. Since the Road Traffic Act 1988, police driving standards have been judged in the same way as those for any other driver despite the additional training they receive and the various exemptions that apply to them. Following a Police Federation campaign, there was a Home Office consultation which included a question on whether the new looser standards should apply only to pursuit or to police response driving generally. Clauses 4 to 6 give effect to the proposed changes, which would judge police driving against the standards of a competent and careful police officer with additional training. The new standards are to be applied to police purposes generally. However, this is a very wide definition. My amendment suggests that it should be limited to pursuit only.
I fully accept that there is an argument that it could also include I-grade—immediate grade—responses. I know that the grading of police responses varies from one force to another but, generally, I-grade calls are those where the immediate presence of a police officer will have a significant impact on the outcome of an incident. It is typically categorised as where there is likely to be a danger to life, a serious threat of violence, serious damage to property or serious injury. The response time is 15 minutes. The other grades of police response are generally called significant, S grade, or extended, E grade, and they do not involve a risk to life or injury. S grade gives a response time of 60 minutes and E grade 48 hours. Clearly, in neither of those cases is there a justification for extremely fast speeds and less than the normal, competent standards of driving that the rest of us ordinary mortals are expected to follow. I would therefore appreciate an explanation from the Minister as to why any kind of police purpose would be regarded as acceptable. We need a greater justification for these changes.
Amendments 15 and 18 also probe the impact of these changes by suggesting that the Secretary of State be given the power to extend the new standards to other emergency services. Noble Lords will understand that this is an inquiry. Ambulance drivers and drivers of fire engines also receive special training. They are highly skilled drivers, trained to break the normal rules of the road. They respond to calls where there is an immediate danger to life. It could be argued that that applies routinely in the case of ambulance drivers, whereas it probably applies fairly exceptionally in the case of the police. My question to the Minister is this: where do the other emergency services stand in relation to the changes to the rules that the Government are suggesting in this legislation? Are we to expect changes for other emergency services in further legislation, or is that not necessary for legal reason that I have not been able to uncover?
I realise, of course, that the two sets of amendments do not sit particularly well together. I am not arguing a case one way or the other. I am simply seeking to emphasise that these are probing amendments to see what is in the Government’s mind. What is their intention?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have Amendments 14 and 17 in this group. I hope—in fact I am confident—that my noble friend the Minister will give a full explanation of the purpose of these clauses in the Bill, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. My concern is the inclusion of staff members in these new tests of dangerous and careless driving. I can understand the need to include civilian police driving instructors, but what I do not understand is the inclusion of other staff members. I hope that the Minister can explain why they need to be included.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, this is a difficult and contentious part of the Bill. There has been much debate for decades about the police approach to vehicle pursuit in particular, and the ability of emergency service drivers to disregard traffic signs and speed limits in an emergency. There have been tragedies where emergency vehicles on their way to serious and urgent incidents have ignored traffic lights or give way signs, or driven on the wrong side of the road, often in an attempt to save or protect lives, and tragically they have been involved in collisions with innocent members of the public, causing serious injury and sometimes loss of life, as my noble friend Lady Randerson has so graphically illustrated from her own personal experience.
This is perhaps the less contentious of the two areas. But even here, for police control room staff—I am sure the same happens with the fire brigade and the ambulance service—calls are graded as follows: emergencies, with arrival as soon as possible; immediate, with arrival within an hour; or routine. This is to ensure that police vehicles are not driven at speed unnecessarily.
I declare an interest as a former police officer who, although in possession of a full driving licence, attended a six-week, full-time police driving course just to become a standard police driver. I was not authorised to drive high-powered cars designed for use in responding to emergency calls and I was not allowed to become involved in vehicle pursuit of criminals, but simply to  be a police driver answering routine calls. Of course, it is possible to become inadvertently involved in a chase, when a car that is asked to pull over refuses to stop, as happened to me on occasion, but as soon as a qualified driver was behind, I dropped out of the pursuit. Being an advanced trained driver involved many more weeks of intensive training; from memory, two six-week courses, with a very high failure rate. The courses were highly sought after and awarded to only the most experienced officers. Police drivers are trained to some of the highest driver standards in the world.
In addition, police control room staff have the authority to direct police vehicles to withdraw from pursuits where the driver of the police vehicle involved is not suitable to conduct the pursuit, where the seriousness of the offence alleged does not justify the risks associated with a high-speed chase, or where the driving conditions —the type of road, the time of the day or any other factor; my noble friend mentioned the presence of pedestrians, for example—present an unreasonable risk to the public and the officers who are involved in the pursuit.
The picture I am trying to paint is one of highly trained police officers whose driving skills are way in advance of the average driver and whose opportunity to break the traffic laws is severely restricted. Clause 4 is not about giving police drivers carte blanche to break the law with impunity but is designed to consider the difficult and often dangerous tasks that they are asked to undertake, and to provide them with a degree of protection commensurate with the training that they have received and the skills that they are able to deploy. To that extent, we support the changes proposed by the Government.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Randerson in her Amendment 13 that the dispensation should not be for all police purposes—certainly for police pursuit purposes but also perhaps for calls officially graded as emergencies. The kind of dispensation should perhaps be limited to “I” calls only, or the equivalent in other police forces, where, as my noble friend said, the immediate presence of a police officer will have a significant impact on the outcome of an incident. As my noble friend said, according to the Metropolitan Police, that is where there is likely to be danger to life, a serious threat of violence, serious damage to property or serious injury. I understand, as an example, that Sussex Police grades its calls similarly from 1 to 4, instead of using letters.
As my noble friend suggests with her Amendment 15, if police drivers are to be given the kind of dispensation provided by Clause 4 in relation to emergency response calls, in addition to police vehicle pursuits, the question must legitimately be asked as to why such dispensation should not be afforded to other emergency workers responding to emergency calls, such as the fire and rescue service, the ambulance service and the coastguard.
I also agree with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in his Amendment 14. Other than in a driving instruction scenario, which his amendment also covers, this dispensation is akin to the legal use of force almost uniquely exercised by constables, who are accountable to the law in a way that other police staff are not. For  example, in cases where the CPS decides that the evidential or public interest tests are not reached that would justify a criminal prosecution but that the driving amounts to misconduct, there are ways in which constables can be held properly to account through police misconduct procedures that are not available to police staff and others employed by the police but who are not police officers. Similar arguments apply, and I similarly support the amendments proposed to Clause 5.
Highly trained police officer drivers chasing criminals in a vehicle pursuit should be judged against a higher threshold of dangerous or careless driving. If such police officers are also to be judged against a higher threshold if they are driving for other police purposes, this should be limited to responding to emergency calls, such as those defined by the Metropolitan Police as “I” calls—those which require attendance within 15 minutes. If that is to be the case, then other emergency services responding to similarly defined emergency calls should also be judged against the higher threshold.
As with so much in this Bill, it appears to us on these Benches that Clauses 4 and 5 do not appear to have been thoroughly thought through.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to his place, and wish him well in his role. If I had realised that he was responding, I would have said that when I made my initial remarks. I apologise and look forward to our discussions.
One thing I did before discussing this group and the next group of amendments—which are incredibly important and deal with really difficult areas of law—was to Google some of the problems. Before I look at some of the examples, just from Googling, of where there have been problems around police pursuits of one sort or another, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for sharing her horrible, terrible and awful experience with the Committee. That is another example of the sorts of issues that can arise from a police pursuit, and thankfully she is here to tell us the tale. We all found it very moving.
As I say, just from Googling, there are various examples that show some of the difficulties: an M27 police pursuit and 100-mile-per-hour chase, with a driver weaving in and out of traffic; “Driver, 18, narrowly misses bus in police pursuit”; “Driver loses police in wrong-way pursuit”; “Car driven along a railway track to escape the police”. This is not to question any of those individual cases—I did not read them; I just looked at the headlines—but a quick Google shows the extent of the problems that arise. Clearly, as it stands, the Government are seeking to address a very real issue. It is not easy, because if you are the victim of a crime, or something is going on, you want the police to respond as quickly as possible. It is a difficult situation for the police, and these clauses seek to deal with that. I appreciate that these are probing amendments, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, but they raise important issues that will need clarifying in both this group and the next.
We welcome these clauses because, like most people, we have been saying for a long time that there is a need for proper and improved protection for police drivers, who regularly put themselves in danger in the line of  duty to pursue suspects. That is what we all want them to do. These clauses put recognition of the training that officers have had and the purposes of the journeys that they take into law. We should pay tribute to the Police Federation for the work it has done in campaigning consistently for this. As I have said already, however, we can see that issues arise from it—indeed, they have already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Earl opposite.
Amendments 13 and 16 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, narrow the clauses to police pursuit. We can see the purpose of the amendments when rereading the Bill, which says:
“Subsection (1B) applies where a designated person … is driving for police purposes”.
I suggest to the Minister that that is a bit vague. What on earth does it mean? Without being sarcastic, “police purposes” could mean that you get in a car to drive down the road because you have to go and see somebody about a crime. That is a police purpose. I am not suggesting that any police officer would therefore drive at 100 miles per hour to do that, but we can see the problem that the noble Baroness is trying to get at; “police purposes” is really wide-ranging. On the other hand—and no doubt the Minister will say this when he responds—saying “police pursuit purposes” narrows it down to the extent that we end up excluding the possibility of the police having an emergency response to things that we would all wish them to have an emergency response to. That is why, I suspect, the noble Baroness has made them probing amendments. Indeed, she said that if you thought somebody was in danger, or if a murder, serious rape or something like was that taking place, you would not want the police driving along slowly to get there. You would want them—in a proper way—getting there as soon as possible with an armed response or whatever response was appropriate.
On one hand, the Bill has, “police purposes”, and I am not sure that that is drafted as well as it might be, but then the definition we would want—“police pursuit purposes”—probably narrows it too much, which is why I am pleased it is a probing amendment. The Committee wants the Government to come back, I think, with something that encapsulates that competing and conflicting point about where we go with respect to that.
Amendment 17 from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—again, this is the point of any Committee—removes any driver from the Bill who is not a constable or civilian driving instructor who is training a police driver. He is saying to the Government, and I think it is a really good point, that they have a long list of designated persons in the Bill—I will not read them all out. I remind the Committee that it does not apply just to the police force; it applies—and it is a good thing the Government added this to the Bill—to the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Police Authority, the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence, the Scottish Police Authority and the National Crime Agency. These can be designated and it gives power to the chief constables and chief officers of those to designate a person, to give them the authority to drive in that way if they have received training. The noble  Earl, Lord Attlee, is therefore right to ask why. What is the Government’s justification for extending this to that range? There might be a very good reason for it, but it is a point we need to understand.
To conclude on this group of amendments, can the Minister shed light on my earlier point as well as who is covered by the current list of designated persons in the Bill and why they have been included?

Earl Attlee: My Lords, if I may come in briefly before my noble friend the Minister speaks, I think the term “for police purposes” appears in other forms of road traffic law. I am not certain, and maybe the Minister can help us on that.
On “police purposes”, I have given the Committee an example of where a police driver might choose to go very fast indeed but perfectly safely. Suppose a passenger carrying vehicle, a minibus, breaks down on the motorway somewhere. As soon as the driver tells the police control room they are a passenger carrying vehicle and they have passengers in the back of that vehicle, I imagine that the police will try to get there as fast as they possibly can, to get a police car behind that broken-down vehicle. That would be a “police purpose”. It is not a pursuit, it is not after criminals; however, a police driver in those circumstances, because he is properly trained in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says, would be expected to identify a change in road surface. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will remember being trained to identify a change in road surface, so actually, if he fails to identify a change in road surface, he could in fact be caught by the changes proposed by the Government.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Attlee for explaining their amendments. I think it is clear that we all want the same outcome, which is protecting police officers who are pursuing dangerous criminals, but also protecting the public. The Government believe that Clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill achieve a sensible balance in meeting these objectives. We believe police officers must be able to do their jobs effectively and keep the public safe without fear of prosecution for simply doing their job in the manner that they are trained to do. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed to some really quite poignant examples of exactly that.
Current laws do not recognise the training that police drivers undertake and the tactics they may have to employ to respond to emergencies and pursue criminals. The new test will allow courts to judge their standard of driving against a “competent and careful” police constable with the same level of training, providing assurance that their skills and training will be taken into account. The new comparison with a “competent and careful” police driver takes into account whether a police driver with the same training would have reasonably made the same decision under the same circumstances.
I was very moved by the personal experiences of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Her Amendments 13 and 16 seek to specify that the new standard should apply only to “police pursuit purposes”, rather than all “police purposes”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, that would in effect exclude the bulk of police driving from additional protection and provide different levels of protection for officers simply based on the operational purpose for which a vehicle was being driven at the time. It would be difficult for those involved in a post-incident procedure to identify the moment that driving for the purpose of surveillance became driving for the purpose of a pursuit—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, eloquently explained.
I think it is worth expanding on the point made by my noble friend Lord Attlee about policing purposes, but not, for example, law enforcement purposes. The term “policing purposes” succinctly covers the types of driving that police officers would be expected to undertake, and that term would take its natural meaning. The term “law enforcement purposes” is more appropriate for the National Crime Agency, given that it is a law enforcement agency but not a police force, and that its activities may extend beyond policing purposes to wider law enforcement purposes. In either case, it would be for the courts to determine whether the driving in question was being undertaken for policing purposes or law enforcement purposes, as the case may be.
A fairer and simpler comparator is for all skilled police drivers to be compared with a peer who has undertaken the same prescribed training, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, noted. All police drivers should be protected if they are carrying out their police duties in a way that someone with the same level of training as them would do. If a police driver has not received the additional training, their driving would be compared to an ordinary motorist’s, as at present, as this is a more appropriate comparison for their skills.
Amendments 15 and 18, tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, seek to give the Secretary of State a power to designate other members of the emergency services by regulations. I suggest that the training and scrutiny of police driving are very different from those of other emergency services. The role of police drivers is more varied than that of the other emergency services, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out. In addition to emergency response, police officers are required to carry out surveillance, armed vehicle interventions, escorts, traffic enforcement and vehicle pursuits—for example, where a suspect is fleeing the scene of a serious crime or otherwise seeking to avoid arrest. For that reason, we do not consider it appropriate to extend these provisions to other emergency services.
Amendments 14 and 17, in the name of my noble friend Lord Atlee, would, as he has indicated, limit police driver standards protection under Clauses 4 and 5 to police officers and civilian police driving instructors. The Government have extended the protection to members of police staff because some civilian specialists may need to drive under emergency conditions and are trained to the National Police Chiefs Council standard to carry out advanced driving tactics. It follows that they should also be able to benefit from the new standard. As with the rest of the provision, the new standard should apply only to those civilian staff who  have completed the prescribed training. I think it is worth reiterating that if they have not, their driving will be compared to that of an ordinary motorist.
I hope that I have been able to persuade noble Lords that the approach taken in these clauses is the right one and that, on this basis, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will be content to withdraw her amendment.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, could the Minister tell us what powers ambulance drivers and fire engine drivers have in terms of being able to disregard speed limits and traffic regulations? He may choose to write to me—that will be fine—but I think it would be very helpful for the Committee to know what those drivers can and cannot do. I understand his point that the requirements of the police are more extensive.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I undertake to write to my noble friend.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, with my 30 years’ experience in the police service, I am having some difficulty in understanding some of the Minister’s explanations, for example about when surveillance becomes a pursuit. We are talking about a situation where an officer is potentially facing a prosecution for careless or dangerous driving. In the ordinary course of surveillance, the people who are being followed will not know that they are being followed. That is what surveillance is. It becomes a chase when the people being surveilled recognise that they have a police vehicle behind them and try to escape. It then becomes a pursuit. So, with the greatest respect, I think that the Government need to sharpen their reasoning for dismissing amendments which, if my noble friend Lady Randerson does not pursue them on Report, I am very likely to.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I think I gave some other examples, though, of things that do not necessarily qualify as police pursuit but are still none the less covered by this: emergency response, armed vehicle interventions and so on. I thought those would cover most of the noble Lord’s points. I take his point, obviously, that if you are under surveillance, you do not necessarily know that anybody is there—that is the whole point. At some point, that could turn into a pursuit; I suppose it depends on the specific circumstances. But I do take his point.

Lord Beith: My Lords, could I ask the Minister if I heard him correctly? I think that, in the early part of the remarks he read out, he used the phrase “pursuit or emergency.” That appeared to me to be quite a helpful definition of what we are talking about here, and excluded things that were neither “pursuit” nor “emergency”. Could that wording not be what the clauses should be based on, and was it not helpful of him to use it in the early part of what he said?

Baroness Randerson: I think I—

Lord Beith: He might be going to answer that.

Baroness Randerson: I will wait for a moment or two. I do not know whether the Minister wants to answer now.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Can I come back to the noble Lord on that in a second, please? Sorry.

Baroness Randerson: I first want to thank the Minister for his response and all other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. In particular, the quick interchange at the end has been a helpful response to the situation. My noble friend Lord Beith has I think raised a realistic solution to the problems with this legislation that this debate has shown up for the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lord Paddick both referred to the controversies and tragedies that occur in these situations. There are endless stories of controversy. Any changes the Government make to the legislation will simply shine a harsher light on the problems that inevitably will occur. So the Government really need to tighten up their thinking on this, and I would ask the Minister to take on board my noble friend’s advice to consider some tighter wording. The Government’s own consultation in 2018 offered two options: the use of the phrase “police purposes” or the use of “pursuit”. That shows that the Government themselves must have been considering those options at the time—so there must have been a logical reason for offering them.
I would like the Minister to take the time between now and Report, when I am pretty sure the issue will come back, to look at potential amendments that the Government believe may be helpful. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. The Government need to be on very sure ground here, because they have drawn a broad definition. “Police purposes,” as the noble Lord, Lord Attlee, said, is a very broad term, and the circumstances in which the new rules can be applied will be questioned. With that, I will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: May I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Beith? I do not know if this is appropriate. I am probably breaking all the rules. I apologise if I am. I think I said, “to respond to emergencies and to pursue criminals”. This applies to all policing purposes where the staff member has had training. I will expand on whether the new test means that the police officer would be prosecuted if they departed from their training and guidance under any circumstances. The police driver training includes decision-making in line with the national decision-making model. This allows for a degree of flexibility. Police drivers should also take account of guidance found in the College of Policing authorised professional practice. The new legislation compares the police driver’s actions with what a careful and competent police driver would reasonably do. In other words, a police driver will be prosecuted for dangerous driving only if they drive in a way that would not be considered reasonable by a careful and competent police driver.
Amendment 13 withdrawn.
Amendments 14 and 15 not moved.
Clause 4 agreed.

  
Clause 5: Meaning of careless driving: constables etc
  

Amendment 16 to 18 not moved.
Clause 5 agreed.

Amendment 19

Lord Paddick: Moved by Lord Paddick
19: After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause—“National standards of competent and careful constableFor the purposes of sections 4 and 5 the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with such persons as they consider appropriate, publish national standards expected of designated persons.”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish national standards of what would be expected of a competent and careful constable under sections 4 and 5, against which their driving should be judged.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, Amendment 19 is supported by my noble friend Lady Randerson and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Amendment 20 is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. I asked for these two amendments to be degrouped from the group we have just debated because that group was about the principle of police officers being given dispensation from the usual tests applied in cases of dangerous and careless driving. These amendments are about a separate issue—the consistency of the likelihood of police officers being prosecuted on not.
The changes proposed by the Government in Clauses 4 and 5 are problematic in that they define the threshold for prosecution or conviction for dangerous or careless driving, set against,
“what would be expected of a competent and careful constable who has undertaken the prescribed training.”
The Police Federation, which provided a draft of this amendment, has reminded me that, while groups of forces tend to pool their resources in police driver training, none the less, there is no national standard. What would be expected of a competent and careful constable who has undertaken the prescribed training can vary from police force to police force. A tactic, such as physical contact by a police vehicle with a stolen motorbike, or a motorbike being driven by a suspect involved in an armed robbery, causing the driver of the motorcycle to crash, might be trained for and practised in some police forces but not in others. To be clear about what I mean, the police driver knocks the criminal off the motorbike by colliding with it—a tactic used by the Metropolitan Police Service.
This could result in a police driver, who was driving in exactly the same way as another police driver in a different police force, being prosecuted and potentially convicted; while the other officer in almost identical circumstances would not face any sanction, if that police driver had been trained in that technique and it was part of the policy of that officer’s police force. Amendment 19 proposes that a national standard be established to ensure consistency in the application of the law, and certainty for police drivers.
Amendment 20, proposed by the Police Federation and based on its wealth of experience in this area, offers an alternative approach by providing a reasonable excuse defence to an allegation of dangerous or careless driving. Instead of adhering to the standard of a careful and competent driver, a police driver could avoid prosecution or conviction, provided the departure from the standard was necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances. This would take account of the relevant driver policy and training, the split-second decisions faced in real time by the driver and the honestly held belief of the driver at the time. This is similar to the dispensation allowed to armed officers who have to make split-second decisions to use their firearms.
I am not a lawyer and I cannot elaborate on whether such a reasonable cause defence is accepted in other similar scenarios. I beg to move Amendment 19.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, we are extraordinarily lucky to have the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I have just one anxiety about a national standard: conditions in the Metropolitan Police area are different from those facing, say, Devon and Cornwall Police. Devon and Cornwall Police might not have to dismount someone riding a motorbike illegally very often, whereas I suspect it is something the Metropolitan Police has to do quite often. On the one hand, I can see the benefit of national police standards, but I have an anxiety that they might not meet the different needs of different types of police force.

Lord Paddick: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his intervention. I think national standards would say that the tactic of colliding with a stolen motorbike was an acceptable tactic that officers could be compared against whether or not it was actually used by particular forces, bearing in mind the circumstances faced by different forces. So, legally, officers in Devon and Cornwall could use that tactic according to the national standard, but it would be very rare for them to use it—if ever at all.

Baroness Randerson: My noble friend has raised the issue of national standards. I want to approach this issue in a slightly different way. I have added my name to the amendment because I have concerns about clarity. The existing standards are set out in the 1988 Act, and we as drivers are all familiar with them. We passed our driving tests however long ago, but on an almost daily basis we practise following those standards—fairly rigorously, I hope.
According to this legislation, we are now moving to a set of standards based on a format for training of which we, with the exception of my noble friend, have no real concept. We do not understand exactly what is involved in this training and what is expected of police drivers. Indeed, I am sure this debate has been very instructive for us all in finding out a bit more about it.
Add that issue to the fact that standards are different from one part of the country to another and we have a difficult situation for the Government in applying this new approach. Good law has to be easily understandable. Publicising the details of these standards—making  sure that the public, as well as police officers, understand them—is essential for acceptance by the general public. That will be essential if cases brought under this legislation are to succeed in court.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, I have a confession to make: I love the traffic police. I have spent many happy hours in the front of a police van with an automatic number plate recognition machine, spotting illegal drivers. The fascinating thing about criminals is that not only do they break the law on drugs, guns and so on, but they do not pay insurance on their cars either. If I were a criminal, I would make sure that my car was perfectly legal, but for some reason they do not. So the traffic police are incredibly successful at catching criminals; at one point—I do not know if this is still true—their arrest rate was far higher than that of the average police officer here in London.
In the 12 years that I sat on the police authority, I took advantage of that to go out with the traffic police. I remember one spectacular day when they had a car-crushing machine next to the A1. All the vehicles speeding down the A1 saw that machine and slowed to legal limits. We were not actually crushing cars that had been taken that day; they had brought some cars out with them from central London. So I am a big fan. The traffic OCU serves an incredible function of keeping our roads safe.
I support Amendment 19. Of course, everybody expects the police who respond to blue-light emergencies to drive fast, overtake, go through red lights and so on, and it is right that the police are given the necessary legal protections to do their job in these situations. Then there are more controversial and dangerous tactics, such as officers aggressively ramming moped drivers who refuse to stop. We cannot leave that for the courtroom to decide—it has to be a political decision. Whether a tactic meets the standard of a reasonable and careful constable is political, because you cannot leave police officers uncertain about whether their behaviour is legal. It would also leave the public unsure about what standard of driving you can expect from our public servants. Amendment 19 addresses that issue and is an extremely neat solution.

Lord Coaker: My Lords, the amendments would improve the Bill. The legislation in some respects is too loose, and needs to be tightened. I hope that, when we move from Committee to Report in a few weeks, the Minister will have had time to reflect on the previous group but also on some of the points being made here, because that will make what we all want much more likely to happen. I hope that he will be able to reflect on the points that noble Lords have made and come forward with the Government’s own amendments to take account of those points, some of which are exceedingly logical and good and would enhance the Bill and what the Government are seeking to achieve.
The amendments raise key issues in relation to the police driving provisions. The aim of the clause is not to allow the police to drive without safeguards or scrutiny but to ensure that they are not criminalised  for what they have been trained to do. Amendment 19 raises a reasonable question about national standards for competent and carefully trained drivers. As we will come on to in Amendment 20, there are various levels of training, and the number of fully trained officers will differ between forces. However, that does not alter the fact that there is a need to set out in more detail and with more clarity what a nationally recognised standard will look like. Will it be covered in the training that officers receive, and is the Minister confident that the Bill makes it clear what a national standard means? The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, posed a reasonable question, which was answered well by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about what that means between different police forces such as Devon and Cornwall and the Metropolitan Police, and how they do things. Those are the sort of points that the Minister needs to raise.
On Amendment 20, the idea of a reasonableness defence is an issue that officers are concerned about, which was raised consistently in the Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, did not mention that quite as much as he did the national standards, but we need to ask how this whole area of reasonableness, which is used in the courts, stands with respect to this Bill. It is difficult to craft an answer, but the issue goes back to the level of training that an officer receives, which varies from force to force. It not only varies from force to force, however: the level of training varies within the police force.
Let me give an example for clarity. If I am a member of the public on the street, I know generally what a response car looks like, and you would expect a response car driver to have had the highest level of training, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said he had received in the past. It is about a proper response driver responding to emergencies or pursuing a vehicle. That is what you would expect if you were a member of the public. But not all police cars are response cars. What about a police van? I have seen police vans driving after people. What happens then?
Is this level of training—police pursuit—available only to response drivers? What about other drivers, or will they be compared to the normal standard? This takes the police into very difficult territory. I have not been a serving police officer like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but I can only imagine that if someone said, “Officer, a mile down the road there is a really serious incident”, and a police van driver did not put the blue lights on and go down there, and as a consequence a murder or a rape took place, people are not going to say, “That officer driving the police van was quite right; he did not respond in the way that he should because he has not had the proper level of training”. This takes us into difficult territory, and it is also about the reputation of the police.
What happens, however, if the police van driver does that, but then crashes or injures somebody else? I thought that was the point of Amendment 20 and the reasonableness defence: you would expect the police officer driving the van to do that, even though they are not trained to the level of the police response driver. From the Bill, however, it is not clear whether the police van driver—I am making that up as an example—would be able to do that and respond to an emergency situation with the same level of protection that the Bill  tries to give to a response-level trained driver, whereas the public would expect them both to respond in the same way.
That is the point of the reasonableness test that Amendment 20 seeks to drive into the Bill. I hope that I have given a clear enough example of the sort of situation that might arise for a police officer, whether operating in Devon and Cornwall, the middle of London, Sheffield, Cardiff or wherever.
This is the point of the Committee: it drives that level of detail that seeks to clarify the way the legislation is drafted—as we saw with the previous grouping, where there is a real problem around the phrase “police purpose”—but also tries to ensure that the legislation delivers in both its wording and its intention.
On the drafting of the Bill, can the Minister just give us some assurance that officers with basic police driver training would be protected if they found themselves having to respond to an incident that ideally required a higher level of training? That is a fundamental question and if I were a police officer driving a vehicle that was not a response vehicle, I would want to know whether I was protected by law in the way that we seek to protect other drivers.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord’s question is that, if the police officer is driving more aggressively than he is trained to do and he has an accident, he is in trouble because he is driving outside of what he is trained to do.

Lord Coaker: May I speak? Sorry, I do not know what the rules are. That is the point that I was making, and I am asking the Minister: what is the answer? The public’s perception of that would be, frankly, dreadful from the police point of view. There is an issue here for the Minister to resolve and to clarify for the police forces and the people driving.

Earl Attlee: I have two points: one is that we are in Committee, so we can speak as many times as we like, and the other is that the public may have to be disappointed, because the police officer may not be able to do everything that the public expect. The public could complain; there is a complaints procedure, so the police could explain why they could not respond in the way that the public would expect.

Lord Sharpe of Epsom: Thank you, my Lords—I have enjoyed this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for setting out the rationale for his amendments and I thank all other noble Lords who made a contribution. I was particularly delighted to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is such a supporter of the traffic police, although I found her relish for car crashes a little upsetting.
In the case of Amendment 19, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is right to highlight the importance of high and consistent standards of police driver training, both to safeguard public safety on the roads and to provide an objective benchmark for police driving during any post-incident proceedings. The new test  allows for higher standards of driver training, as we discussed on the previous set of amendments, and competence will be taken into consideration when deciding whether to prosecute a police officer for an offence of dangerous or careless driving. Therefore, it is necessary to be able to objectively assess whether the officer or instructor has undertaken the appropriate enhanced driver training or has otherwise acquired specialist driver skills.
Clauses 4 and 5 therefore already require the Home Secretary to prescribe the appropriate training in regulations. I refer the noble Lord to new subsections (1A)(b) and (1B)(a) of Section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as inserted by Clause 4(3). There is a similar provision in Clause 5. The regulations will prescribe the minimum training standards that chief officers, police drivers and police driver instructors should comply with, which I hope goes some way towards answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Specifying the appropriate training and skills in regulations will enable them to be readily updated to reflect changes in the police driver training curriculum and to operational good practice, emerging threats and crime trends, or new technology utilised by either criminals or the police, new case law, and learning from incidents involving drivers.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson pointed out, consistency is important, so the National Police Chiefs’ Council has been working closely with police forces to standardise police driver training across England and Wales. This will ensure that police drivers are trained to a similar standard, depending on their role, and the legal test for police drivers will have a fairer comparator. The regulations will require police drivers to take account of the national police driver learning programme and the authorised professional practice for police drivers, published on the College of Policing website, which allows tactics and skills to be readily updated. I think some of this debate has strayed into police tactics, as well as the rules and regulations.
The regulations are being drafted in consultation with stakeholders, including police driving leads and the College of Policing, and will be made by the Secretary of State in early 2022. The regulations will be subject to the negative procedure. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that it is important that the public are at least made aware of those, and they should certainly understand them.
In short, the combination of the regulations to be made under Clauses 4 and 5 and the College of Policing’s published authorised professional practice achieve the outcome that the noble Lord seeks; namely, publicly available national standards.
On Amendment 20, the Government’s view is that the proposed introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, of a reasonableness statutory defence for police drivers is unnecessary. The existing proposed legislation is sufficient to provide police drivers with the protection they need. As the noble Lord said himself at Second Reading,
“Protecting police officers in vehicular pursuit of dangerous criminals is right, but so is protecting innocent members of the public caught up in the chase.”—[Official Report, 14/9/21; col. 1287.]
The state has a duty under Article 2 of the ECHR to protect the right to life. Such a wide defence would not balance the need to give the police the confidence to pursue dangerous criminals on the one hand and the need to avoid doing so in such a way as to create disproportionate risks to other road users. The tiny minority of police officers who drive in an inappropriate manner should be held to account.
I hope that I have been able to go some way to persuading the noble Lord that the issue of national standards has already been addressed through the Bill and elsewhere, and that a reasonableness defence would not be appropriate. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. To my noble friend Lady Randerson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I say that I have just started cycling in London again and it is terrifying; we need more traffic police.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, particularly for the way he absolutely hit the nail on the head with his example of a police van driver who is not an advanced driver who is told by a member of the public that, 100 yards down the road, somebody is being murdered, but who has not received the level of training that they will be judged against. In the debate on the previous group, the Minister said that if they have not had the training, they will be judged like an ordinary driver; he also said that the legislation provides the protection that they need. But the example from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, shows how they will not get protection under the law as proposed and drafted by the Government in the Bill.
The Minister said that these changes have been made in consultation. Dare I suggest that they were not made in consultation with the Police Federation? They have not been made in consultation with the officers who will be directly affected by the legislation, because it was the Police Federation that asked me to propose these amendments to the Bill. Again, I am afraid I must suggest that the Minister has been rather let down by his brief in not being able to address the very real concerns that noble Lords around the House have expressed. We will clearly come back to this on Report, but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment 19 withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed.
Amendment 20 not moved.

  
Clause 7: Duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence

Amendment 21

Lord Rosser: Moved by Lord Rosser
21: Clause 7, page 8, line 16, after “violence” insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”Member’s explanatory statementThis amendment would require specified authorities subject to the “serious violence duty” to safeguard children involved in serious violence.

Lord Rosser: We now move on to Part 2 of the Bill. The amendments in this group all relate to the issue of ensuring that safeguarding and tackling the criminal exploitation of children is a central part of the duty to reduce serious violence as set out in Part 2, with its duties on specified authorities to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence.
There are a considerable number of amendments in this group. Amendments 21, 23, 36, 37, 42 and 43 would require specified authorities subject to the serious violence duty to safeguard children involved in serious violence.
Amendment 24 would require specified authorities to safeguard children involved in serious violence as part of the serious violence duty, including identifying and safeguarding children who are victims of modern slavery and trafficking.
Amendment 25 would require specified authorities subject to the duty to prepare and implement an early help strategy to prevent violence, support child victims of violence and prevent hidden harm. Early intervention is surely crucial to prevent violence before it occurs, and that needs to be in the Bill. Preventive safeguarding activity can be focused on offering support to a child and family through targeted or universal services at the first sign of issues in their lives becoming difficult to prevent them being coerced in activity associated with serious violence.
Amendment 27 would ensure that any children’s social care authority which was not already involved in the strategy would be consulted in the preparation of the strategy.
Amendment 49 would require specified authorities to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and safeguard affected children.
Amendment 50 introduces a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation. Children who are groomed and exploited by criminal gangs are the victims, not the criminals.
Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, is a probing amendment. It would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy for providing specialist training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence.
While we support this part of the Bill, the statutory duty to reduce violence will not work in the way we need it to unless it includes the duty to safeguard children who have been pulled into that violence or are being impacted by it. These amendments would require authorities subject to the serious violence duty to safeguard children involved in serious violence, and would specifically add safeguarding children involved in violence and identifying and safeguarding children who are victims of modern slavery and trafficking as requirements of the serious violence duty. They would make preparing and implementing an early help strategy to prevent violence, support child victims of violence and prevent hidden harm a specific requirement of authorities as part of their serious violence duties and would ensure that any children’s social care authority that, as I said, was not already involved in the strategy to reduce serious violence, would be consulted in the preparation of this strategy.
The amendments on child criminal exploitation would require specified authorities to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and safeguard affected children, as well as introducing the statutory definition of child criminal exploitation to which I referred. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, to which I have already referred and which we support, would require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy for providing specialist training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence. I will say more about the amendments on child criminal exploitation shortly.
The Bill places a significant and welcome new duty on specified authorities to identify the kinds of serious violence that occur; to identify the causes of serious violence in the area; and to prepare and implement a strategy for exercising their functions to prevent and reduce serious violence in an area. While obviously prison and policing are crucial in terms of justice and bringing to book those who have committed offences, prevention of crime in the first place is the real long-term solution to reducing violent crime and creating a safer and better society. Case studies have shown that, if someone is in care, is vulnerable, has experienced domestic abuse in the home, has parents with addictions or has no parents at all, these are matters that make them more vulnerable to getting involved in violence later in life. If we can intervene at the earliest possible stages, we can have a significant impact not just on the lives of those young people but on society and on the costs to society of high levels of violence.
This part of the Bill is a step in the right direction towards doing that. However, while a public health approach to tackling serious violence that seeks to address the root causes is welcome, creating a statutory public health duty will not deliver if the desired result of reducing the number of children who are harmed by serious violence is not also achieved. An approach for tackling serious violence that does not also help to protect children from harm, does not include the full range of partners and interventions needed and does not consider some of the more structural factors that contribute to violence just will not deliver the desired outcome that surely we all want.
We need a strategy that equips the safeguarding system and the statutory and voluntary services to protect children from harm with the resources and guidance to do so. These amendments make the specified authorities involved in the serious violence duty safeguard children at risk of or experiencing harm and they refer in particular to children involved in serious violence in the area as a result of being a victim of modern slavery and trafficking offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
I repeat that the statutory duty to reduce violence cannot be effective on its own without a statutory duty to safeguard children, as provided for in this group of amendments. Currently, the draft guidance on the serious violence reduction duty does not mention safeguarding. Can the Minister reassure the House that this will be revisited?
Amendments 49 and 50, and the amendment in the lead name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, deal specifically with the issue of child criminal exploitation  and are supported by organisations including Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society. Amendment 50 would introduce a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, putting a recognised definition in law for the first time. It provides that exploitation is where:
“Another person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls the person to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence.”
At the heart of this group is the fact that children and vulnerable young people who are being pulled into violence require a bespoke response that recognises their particular risk factors. I think it is fair to say there is a growing awareness of child criminal exploitation, but it is also irrefutable that, for so many children being exploited, we are failing to identify them and provide support in time to quite literally save their lives. Not only do we need to improve that support, and action at the point of crisis, we need to look at the long-term support required by a child who is traumatised by what they have experienced.
Child criminal exploitation could include being coerced into carrying weapons, drug trafficking as part of county lines, or committing acts of serious violence, perhaps against a rival gang. A preventive approach needs to target those who commit these crimes against children and find ways to support the children out of the situation they so often feel they just have no way of leaving.
Barnardo’s says it has found that agencies, including police forces, are not routinely collecting or recording information on this type of exploitation. It reports that a number of reviews have found that children at risk are being passed between agencies without meaningful engagement. A statutory definition would improve awareness and understanding and encourage joined-up working, not only across the justice system but across all partners included in the serious violence duty. It would give a common definition of what we are seeking to tackle.
Amendment 52, to which I have also added my name, was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who is unavoidably unable to be here today, and we are sorry not to have the benefit of her knowledgeable contribution to this debate. The amendment would support the definition of child criminal exploitation by ensuring that professionals are trained to identify and prevent this exploitation and effectively support children who are victims or at risk of being victims. Training is surely key to ensuring that our agencies have the skills and resources to tackle this problem, and we strongly support the amendment.
Together, these particular amendments would pave the way to a more focused, effective and joined up response to this abhorrent coercion and manipulation of children and vulnerable young people. Overall, the amendments in this group are intended to ensure that safeguarding children who have been pulled into violence or are being impacted by it, and tackling the exploitation of children, is a central part of the duty to reduce serious violence—a much-needed provision, because a statutory duty to reduce violence cannot be effective on its own without a statutory duty to safeguard children. I move.

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb: My Lords, I have signed most of the amendments in this group because I think they are extremely valuable. I want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on his very thorough exposition of why they are needed.
As I and others have mentioned many times, there is a serious failing of the police and the Home Office to safeguard children and young people from serious violence. This is most explicit in the police’s ongoing use of child spies, where they scoop up children who have got stuck in dangerous criminal situations and put them in even more danger by working them as an intelligence asset with very few safeguards. Obviously, Amendment 50 could then apply to police officers who put children in that sort of situation.
The serious violence duty is important, but it must include a duty to safeguard children and young people who are caught up in the chaos of organised crime. Early interventions, removing children from organised crime, and well-funded youth programmes are all key to ending this cycle of violence. Writing them off as destined for a life of crime and using them as disposable police assets is inhumane and dangerous. I hope that the Minister can change tack on this so that we can change many young lives for the better.

Bishop of Durham: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was in his place earlier but has had to go elsewhere for the evening. He has asked me to speak on his behalf on the amendments in this group tabled in his name alongside those of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I thank the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s for their support and helpful briefings.
The Church has a particular concern for vulnerable children. As far as the Church of England is concerned, there are 4,644 schools in which we educate around 1 million students. This educational commitment is combined with parish and youth worker activities that bring the Church into contact with thousands of families each year. Through the Clewer Initiative, many parishes and dioceses have worked closely on the issues of county lines and confronting the blight of modern slavery. Accordingly, we have seen at first hand and, sadly, all too frequently the terrible damage caused by serious youth violence and by the criminal exploitation of children. The latter is an especially insidious form of abuse, which one victim has described as “when someone you trusted makes you commit crime for their benefit”.
Amendment 50, as we have heard, seeks to create a definition of child criminal exploitation that would sit alongside other definitions of exploitation already in the Modern Slavery Act. The present lack of a single statutory definition means that local agencies are responding differently to this form of exploitation across the country. Research by the Children’s Society in 2019 found that only one-third of local authorities had a policy in place for responding to it. By its very nature, exploitation through county lines crosses local authority boundaries, so it is imperative that there is a national shared understanding of child criminal exploitation so that children do not fall through the gaps if they live in one area but are exploited in  another. A consequence of the current lack of a shared definition and approach is that many children receive punitive criminal justice responses rather than being seen as victims of exploitation and abuse.
Youth justice data shows that in 2019-20, 1,402 children were first-time entrants to the youth justice system due to drug offences, with 2,063 being first-time entrants due to weapon offences. Both issues are often associated with criminal exploitation through the county lines drug model. Despite positive work from several police forces and the CPS, many criminal cases are still being pursued against a child even when they have been identified as a victim of criminal exploitation.
Relatedly, too many children are coming to the attention of services only when they are arrested by police for drugs-related crimes, as early warning signs are not understood or are simply missed. We too often find that not all professionals involved in children’s lives fully understand this form of exploitation and how vulnerabilities manifest in children. There are countless serious case reviews that point to safeguarding interventions not being made earlier enough in the grooming process.
A statutory definition agreed and understood by all local safeguarding partners would enable professionals to spot the signs earlier and divert vulnerable children away from harm, in much the same way as the recently adopted statutory definition of domestic abuse is now helping to improve responses on that issue. I am sure that every Member of this House shares the desire to protect vulnerable children. Adopting this definition would send a strong message to those children that their abuse is seen, heard and understood.
This also leads me briefly to address Amendments 21, 23 to 27, 42 and 43, which would amend the serious violence duty. Concern with the serious violence duty, as presented here, is about a lack of clear commitment to the safeguarding of children. No differentiation is drawn between how this duty impacts on children as opposed to adults.
Children and vulnerable young people experiencing serious violence require a different response. Being involved in violence is often an indicator that children are experiencing other problems in their lives, such as being criminally exploited. It is important to understand these underlying causes of why children may be involved in violence, and for these underlying causes in a child’s life or in the lives of children within certain areas to be addressed. We need to intervene to protect and divert children, not treating them as adult criminals. This requires a co-ordinated approach to preventative safeguarding which focuses on offering support to a child and family through targeted or universal services at the first signs of issues in their lives to prevent them being coerced into activity associated with serious violence.
Safeguarding and protecting children and vulnerable young people from harm should be the first priority of statutory agencies, and in any subsequent duty for these agencies to co-operate with one another. The duty as currently drafted does not mention “safeguarding” once, nor does it signal the need for the specific involvement of children’s social care teams in creating a strategy to prevent violence in a local area. A failure to write into the duty the need to safeguard children  risks young people falling through the cracks in statutory support and receiving a punitive response from statutory services. It makes the duty all about crime reduction at the expense of safeguarding. It would also hinder the ability of the duty to be truly preventative if it did not specify the involvement of children’s services.
I hope that we shall receive some assurances from the Minister on the commitment to safeguarding, ideally on the face of the Bill, but certainly a commitment that the issue of how the duty relates to safeguarding will be more closely considered in guidance.

Baroness Stroud: My Lords, I support Amendments 50 and 52, which seek to create a statutory definition for child criminal exploitation and provide training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence.
The intention of these amendments is to ensure that those who first encounter victims—most often, police officers on a child’s arrest—know what they are looking for and are prepared to respond to signs of child criminal exploitation and secure the intervention and support for children who are being exploited.
This amendment could well be needed to ensure that we no longer allow our most vulnerable children to slip through the cracks and end up in a cycle of exploitation, violence and criminality. I was particularly struck by a story published by the Children’s Society in which a child was repeatedly exploited to transport drugs and weapons, and his mother threatened by older youths when he failed to provide money to those coercing him into criminal activity. He was known to his youth offending team, but the extent of the ways in which he had been exploited did not become manifest until his tragic murder in January 2019. His story is just one of thousands.
The Children’s Commissioner has estimated that at least 27,000 children in the UK are currently at serious risk of gang exploitation. The national referral mechanism has begun to recognise the weight of this criminal exploitation as a form of modern slavery, and 2,749 of the 4,964 child victims that it encountered in 2020 had been subject to child criminal exploitation. However, only a minority of exploited victims ever reach the national referral mechanism. These amendments are designed to probe whether we need a clear definition and understanding of criminal exploitation, and training which equips local authorities to intervene and protect children from it.
It is important that we recognise that when a child is being exploited, first and foremost, as we have heard this evening, they are a victim. According to an FOI request by Barnardo’s, only one of 47 local policing departments responded with existing awareness and a strategy for combating child criminal exploitation, leaving 29 which had no approach and 17 which were unresponsive.
Without awareness of child criminal exploitation and a policy in place for its detection and eradication, children are arrested as criminals and enter the criminal justice system with no assistance against the coercion that they face. This often results in their continued exploitation on release and a perpetuated cycle of coerced reoffending.
These amendments are about equipping those who have the greatest visibility of these matters to intervene and provide support when it is needed most. Will the Minister outline her plans for ensuring that the 29 local policing departments which had no approach to child criminal exploitation and the 17 unresponsive departments are properly trained and equipped to identify and address this issue?
As we know, this Government are committed to an ambitious levelling-up agenda. For the UK to truly level up, to build a society where everyone is able to flourish and reach their full potential, no matter the circumstances into which they were born, we need to be far more proactive in breaking the cycle of exploitation and intervening to give our children a chance to thrive. Can the Minister confirm that the challenges that these vulnerable children face will also be addressed in the forthcoming levelling-up strategy?

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I agree very much with the concerns that have been expressed this evening, and I would because I have an interest which I should declare as a trustee of Safer London whose work is directed to deterring young people from becoming involved in crime. Giving young people the tools they need to resist being pulled into crime is a very wide agenda. As is obvious from the name, the work is confined to London, but it is needed all over.
As well as that, I remember the debates during the passage of the Modern Slavery Bill on what is meant by “exploitation”. I take the point about people—it is not just children—who may be perceived as criminals but who are actually victims, so I understand the calls for much better understanding of child criminal exploitation. I hope that what I am about to say is understood to be support for, not opposition to, the thrust of what is being proposed.
Amendment 52, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on training is absolutely to the point. If all agencies and authorities were trained to recognise what they are seeing but not recognising, in a way that would answer all the other points that have been made. If the prevention and reduction of crime, which is what these clauses are about, means anything, surely it must include safeguarding. That is prevention. Safeguarding is not defined, which does not surprise me because it is comprised of an awful lot of component parts and is different in different circumstances. I would be interested to know whether the Minister call tell us what is already on the statute book in this area. Are we talking about bringing together provisions that should be brought together that are scattered, as can be the case, or are we talking about something new in statutory terms?
I do not think that we can leave the issue without referring to resources. If there were the resources to extend the excellent work being done by various organisations far more widely, both in the voluntary sector and to statutory authorities, I do not think we would be talking about all this. But I am quite convinced that it comes back to training to recognise what should really be in front of people’s eyes. I know it is easy for us, standing up in the Chamber, to say that, and I  would not like to do the job that some police officers, teachers, health workers and so on do. But the training should support the achievement of everything that noble Lords are seeking this evening.

Lord Paddick: My Lords, there are a number of general points I need to make about the new legal duties to support a multiagency approach to preventing and tackling serious violence. I will try to make them in the appropriate group of amendments, but I hope the Committee will accept that there is a great deal of overlap.
The overwhelming response of the non-governmental organisations I have met with which have concerns about this part of the Bill is that, as drafted, it is actually about forcing agencies to support a police-led enforcement approach to serious violence—not a public health approach, or even a multiagency approach, to preventing and tackling serious violence. The Government’s own consultation on this issue gave three options: a new legal duty on specific organisations to effectively share information with the police; a new legal duty to revise community safety partnerships, the existing and well-established mechanism where local authorities and police forces work together to prevent and tackle crime, and where the local police chief and local authority chief executive are equal partners in doing whatever each partner and others can do to reduce crime and disorder; and a voluntary non-legislative approach. There was more support for a legislative approach than a voluntary one, but more respondents favoured enhancing community safety partnerships—40%—compared with a new legal duty to provide information to the police—37%—and, tellingly, the police supported equally options one and two.
Even the police, the sector most likely to benefit from a police-led enforcement approach, were ambivalent as to whether it should be a truly multiagency approach by enhancing community safety partnerships or a police-led enforcement approach. So why did the Government opt for the latter and not the former? A police-led enforcement approach was the Government’s preferred option from the beginning. These amendments, which we support, are the first manifestation of challenging that police-led enforcement approach, in that the legal duty does not sufficiently recognise that many young people, particularly those involved in county lines, are victims of criminal exploitation rather than free-acting criminals. Henry Blake is a former youth worker who draws on his personal experiences of working with at-risk young people in his powerful film, “County Lines”—a drama about one young man who is drawn into county lines drug dealing. I would highly recommend this film to any noble Lord who is unaware of the realities of county lines.
Many young people lacking family support and living in poverty find themselves groomed by adults who appear to show them the love and concern they desperately seek, and who treat them to meals in burger restaurants and buy them new trainers—something their often lone parent cannot afford. They promise them money, not just so they can afford the latest designer clothing that they need if they are not to be bullied by gangs, who see those who do not wear  designer labels—even Nike and Adidas—as targets. It is not just so they can go to McDonald’s whenever they want, but so that they can help their mum put food on the table and make sure their younger sister has decent clothes to wear. I hope noble Lords can see how easily vulnerable young people are drawn into criminality, not just for pecuniary advantage but for the sense of belonging and the sense that someone is at last paying them some attention. For many, it is as much an emotional need as a financial one.
Of course, the reality is very different. The adults exploiting these young people take the vast majority of the profits of the drug dealing in which they are involving these young people whom they have groomed, and the youngsters take all the risks, often ending in violence from rival drug dealers. These young people are victims of criminal exploitation, and each one of us is to blame—not them. It is our fault that their single mothers have to do three minimum wage jobs to pay the rent and put food on the table and so, through no fault of their own, can rarely be there for their kids as most wish they could be. It is our fault that too many people do not have a decent place to live, because they cannot afford private rents for an appropriately sized home in a good state of repair, and that there is a shocking shortage of social housing and much of what exists is in an appalling state of repair. It is our fault that, as the cost of living spirals upwards, we take away £20 a week in universal credit from those most in need. The Government’s response is to force other agencies to divulge information that makes it easier for them to prosecute these victims of criminal exploitation.
That is why the Bill needs to radically change from a police-led enforcement approach to preventing and tackling serious violence to a truly public health and multiagency approach, starting with—although this is only the beginning of the changes needed—putting the safeguarding of children involved in serious violence in the Bill. That must include, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, suggests in his Amendment 50, and as both Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society have suggested, including a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation in the meaning of exploitation in Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, suggests in her Amendment 52, training for police officers in particular, to ensure that they are aware of child criminal exploitation and actively seeking evidence of such exploitation.

Baroness Williams of Trafford: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for setting out the case for these amendments. I wholeheartedly agree that nothing is more important than safeguarding children at risk of harm. That is why we introduced reforms to safeguarding in 2017, which led to the establishment of multiagency safeguarding arrangements in 2019. The statutory safeguarding partners responsible for safeguarding—that is, local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and chief officers of police—are also named as specified authorities under the serious violence duty, so I would argue that it is truly a multiagency approach. This demonstrates the importance of safeguarding in protecting children and young people from involvement in serious violence. We expect that  existing work to safeguard vulnerable children will link very closely with local efforts to prevent and reduce serious violence. Therefore, we do not believe that it is necessary to include a separate safeguarding requirement in this part of the Bill, and it would not be possible to do so without duplicating existing safeguarding legislation.
On Amendment 25, which would require specified authorities to prepare and implement an early help strategy, the noble Lord is absolutely right to highlight the importance of prevention and early intervention and this, of course, is the key aim of the serious violence duty. We recognise that early intervention and prevention are essential to reducing serious violence. The duty requires partners to work collaboratively to develop a strategy to reduce serious violence in their local area. We expect partners to work with upstream organisations, such as education providers and children’s social care, when developing this strategy to ensure that it covers actions that relate to early help and considers risks that occur before a young person becomes involved in serious violence. This ensures that any strategy will include early help for this cohort. We believe that it would be less effective to separate this out into an additional strategy.
It is also relevant that the provision of early help is an important feature of existing statutory guidance, called Keeping Children Safe in Education and Working Together to Safeguard Children. This requires schools, colleges, and organisations and agencies working with children and their families in discharging their functions to have appropriate safeguarding support in place. As such, this should already be built into existing safeguarding practice.
Amendment 27 would require all specified authorities to consult any children’s social care authority for the area, if not already a specified authority under this part of the Bill, as part of the preparation of local strategies. I totally agree that children’s social care authorities have a crucial contribution to make to local efforts, particularly for those young people at risk of being involved in serious violence, child criminal exploitation or other harms. However, it is also clear to me that local authorities are already a specified authority under the duty and have a responsibility for children’s social care services under separate legislation. The duty has been designed this way to ensure that children’s social care services play a significant role in the discharge of the duty, as they have valuable experience in safeguarding issues and tackling a variety of harms, including serious violence. The statutory guidance for the serious violence duty will make it clear that children’s social care services, as well as other services that local authorities are responsible for, should be involved in the development of the local strategy.
I would also like to assure the Committee that the Government are committed to tackling the heinous crime of modern slavery, including by the identification and safeguarding of child victims of modern slavery. Section 52 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 places a statutory duty on specified public authorities in England and Wales to notify the Home Secretary when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a person may  be the victim of slavery or human trafficking. If the potential victim is a child, there is no requirement to obtain their consent to this notification, and the duty is discharged by referring a potential victim to the national referral mechanism, known as the NRM. It is the process by which the UK identifies and supports potential victims of modern slavery by connecting them with appropriate support. First responder organisations, which include law enforcement agencies, local authorities and specified non-governmental organisations, are able to make a referral to the NRM, as set out in the modern slavery statutory guidance.
Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of all children in their area, including child victims of modern slavery, is the responsibility of local authorities. Children’s services should already be working in close co-operation with the police and other statutory and non-statutory agencies to offer child victims of modern slavery the support that they require. In addition to the statutory support provided by local authorities, Section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act made provision for independent child trafficking guardians in England and Wales, whose role it is to provide specialist independent support for trafficked children and to advocate on behalf of the child to ensure their best interests are reflected in decisions made by public authorities. This service now covers in total two-thirds of all local authorities across England and Wales, so I do not think that to include a further requirement in this Bill is necessary, given that it is already mandatory.
Amendment 49 would require specified authorities to prepare and implement a strategy to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and safeguard affected children within the serious violence duty. I want to be absolutely clear here that targeting, grooming and the exploitation of children, who are often the most vulnerable in our society, for criminal purposes is wholly unacceptable and this Government fully condemn it. Noble Lords will know that criminals can adapt their approach in response to legislation and government policy, which is why the serious violence duty has been designed to be flexible, enabling areas to tailor the duty to their specific requirements and crime types that are deemed a local priority, as well as being able to respond to emerging and unforeseen threats.
There will also be accompanying statutory guidance, which we have published in draft form, that will make it clear to specified authorities that they will be able to determine what types of serious violence to include in their local strategy based on evidence from their strategic needs assessment. The legislation as currently drafted will allow specified authorities to include child criminal exploitation in their local serious violence strategies, and I am therefore not convinced of the need for a separate strategy at this stage.
Amendment 52 would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for providing specialist training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence for all specified authorities under the serious violence duty. Training is of course absolutely essential in equipping professionals to strengthen their knowledge and skills so they can provide the best support for young people, but I do not think we need to include it in the Bill.
Existing statutory guidance, specifically Working Together to Safeguard Children, already makes it clear that local safeguarding partners are responsible for considering what training is needed locally and for planning how they will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of training that is commissioned. There is a requirement to include how interagency training will be commissioned, delivered and monitored for impact in their published local safeguarding arrangements. Annual reports of the safeguarding arrangements must also include evidence of the impact of the work of the safeguarding partners and relevant agencies, including any training undertaken. I think that this existing approach is correct, given that the three safeguarding partners will be best placed to determine the training needs of their practitioners in response to the risks to children in their area according to local needs and circumstance.
Finally, Amendment 50 seeks to establish a statutory definition of “child criminal exploitation”. We have explored the introduction of such a statutory definition with a range of operational partners and have concluded that Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act, which provides for definitions of exploitation within the Act, is sufficient to respond to a range of child criminal exploitation scenarios. It was also a finding of the independent review into the Modern Slavery Act conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Field, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and Maria Miller MP, who considered the definition of child criminal exploitation under the 2015 Act and recommended that it should not be amended as it is flexible to new and emerging forms of modern slavery.
It is also important to note that child criminal exploitation is already defined in statutory guidance. This includes both the Keeping Children Safe in Education and Working Together to Safeguard Children statutory guidance. It is also included in a number of non-statutory practice documents, including the Home Office child exploitation disruption toolkit for front-line practitioners and the county lines guidance for prosecutors and youth offending teams.
I also assure noble Lords that the Home Office is working collaboratively across government and with operational partners to raise the profile of, and improve local safeguarding arrangements for, child criminal exploitation. That is why, along with the Department for Education, we worked with Liverpool John Moores University to test the effectiveness of the multiagency safeguarding partnerships in dealing with young people at risk or involved in serious violence and county lines. We have recently received the findings from those reviews and are considering the best way to share the learning and practice with local areas.
In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the vast majority of child criminal exploitation cases currently occur in the context of county lines. The Home Office is therefore providing up to £1 million in this financial year to provide specialist support for under-25s and their families who are affected by county lines exploitation in the three largest exporting force areas: that is, London, the West Midlands and Merseyside. We also fund Missing People’s SafeCall service, which is a national confidential helpline for young people,  families and carers who are concerned about county lines exploitation. So, while I am not persuaded of the need for a statutory definition, I hope I have provided some assurance that tackling child criminal exploitation is a priority for this Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out that the guidance does not deal with safeguards. As he indicated, we have now published the statutory guidance in draft. That is precisely so that we can gather views on how the draft can be improved. We welcome feedback and will consult on an updated draft ahead of implementation. We are working closely with the DfE and the voluntary sector to develop the content on safeguarding in our statutory guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that the duty is being led by policing and is focused on law enforcement. Tackling serious violence is not a matter for policing alone—it cannot be. To be successful in driving down violent crime we need, as I said at the outset, a multiagency approach. We do not think that the duty is a police-led enforcement approach; that is quite a mischaracterisation, I think, of what the provisions are about.
In summary, I wholeheartedly support the sentiments of all noble Lords. I hope that I have persuaded noble Lords that we do not need these amendments, and that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will withdraw Amendment 21.

Lord Rosser: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and the Minister for the Government’s response. I will, of course, be withdrawing the amendment at this stage and I certainly do not want, at this late hour, to detain the Committee for very long.
I think we are back to the usual issue. As I understand it, the Government do not seem to disagree with the points made in this debate or the concerns expressed. It is just that they do not think that adding things to the Bill, in the way provided for in this group of amendments, will contribute to making the situation better. That, I suppose, is where we have, at the moment, a fairly fundamental disagreement. I will read the Minister’s response on behalf on the Government very carefully in Hansard and reflect on what they have had to say. My feeling at present, which may turn out to be unfair, is that the existing arrangements for safeguarding children and preventing their exploitation by criminal gangs are, frankly, not working as effectively as we want. As I say, I may be being very unfair in saying this, so I will read very carefully what the Minister had to say in Hansard, but the impression I am left with is that the Government believe that the present arrangements are working effectively and no significant change is needed.
Once again, if that is a fair reflection of what the Minister has been saying, there is obviously a fundamental disagreement between us—between everybody who has spoken on this issue, apart from the Minister, and the Government. After all, organisations dealing with the exploitation and safeguarding of children clearly do not hold the view that the present practices and procedures are effective.
I do not want to spend my time reiterating the points I made—that is not the purpose of summing up or responding at the end of the debate—but I do think  there are significant differences of view between those of us on this side of the Committee and the Government over the effectiveness of the present arrangements. The Government appear to think that no change is needed, but I simply come back to the point that a statutory duty to reduce violence cannot be effective on its own—and that is what is provided for in the Bill—without a statutory duty to safeguard children  also being placed in the Bill. We will need to reflect further on what we do on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 21 withdrawn.
House resumed.
House adjourned at 10.30 pm.